Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Hasmukhrai Chandrakant Vs. the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)ACC169; 2007ACJ401; 2005(4)ALLMR630

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit being Suit No. 2661 of 1984 has been filed against the insurance company for the recovery of sum of Rs. 18,70,322.42/-with further interest on the principal amount of Rs. 15,85,019/-at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the suit till payment and or realisation. The said claim has been made on the basis of insurance policy obtained by the plaintiff from the defendant company. Some of the material facts of the present case can be briefly enumerated as under :2. Some time in or about March, 1981 the plaintiff entered into an agreement for purchase of 2674 drums of soap raw material from one Manilal Holdings SDN. BRD of Penang. Pursuant to the said contract the said goods were shipped by the said company via the ship known as 'Speed Success'. The port of discharge for the said cargo was Bombay. On 28.3.1981 the said ship 'Speed Success' arrived at Bombay. However since no berth was available the said goods were unloaded in lighters from time to time be...

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Laldee P. Ltd. and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR535

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff which is a statutory corporation under the provisions of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Under the provisions of the Major Port Trust the plaintiff is the owner of the docks at Bombay and under the provisions of the said act the plaintiff is empowered to take charge of the goods landed from the ships coming to Bombay and also entitled to various charges in respect of the wharfage, demurrage and other charges. The scales for the said charges are duly prescribed.2. Sometime in or about 1974 the first and the second defendant imported 54 bundles containing steel strips which were manifested at Item No. 500 of the Import General Manifest No. 1791 dated 19.3.1974. The defendant no. 2 was the canalising agent at the relevant time and by virtue of its status as canalising agent was the sole agency for importing the said goods. The said goods arrived at Bombay in a vessel known as 'S.S. STATE OF MEGHALAYA'. The goods were lande...

Manohar S/O Martandrao Kulkarni and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ4653; 2005(4)MhLj588

R.S. Mohite, J.1. The aforesaid group of 59 matters has been clubbed together because they involve a common question of law, which is no longer res integra and since they can all be decided and disposed of on the basis of the said question of law. All the matters pertain to the quashing of an F.I.R./investigation/proceedings under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act for the sake of brevity). In all the aforesaid matters either rule or notices have been issued on the footing that the matters would be decided finally at the stage of admission, such notices having been served upon the respondents. In such of the matters that Rule has not been issued. Rule is now issued and the same is made returnable forthwith by consent. All the matters are, therefore, being disposed of finally on a point of law by this judgment and order.2. In applications being Criminal Application Nos. 786/1996,...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Firm Keshavaji Vallabhdas

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom418; 2006(1)ALLMR194; 2006(1)BomCR462

ORDERS.T. Kharche, J. 1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this appeal takes an exception to the judgment dated 29-6-1989 and decree passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 648 of 1984 whereby the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 23-4-1984 and decree passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., in Regular Civil Suit No. 972 of 1982 dismissing the suit is set aside and directed the defendants to pay Rs. 8,201.60 to the plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of Rs. 8,126/- from the date of filing of the suit till realization.2. Relevant facts can briefly be stated as under:The Firm M/s Kisanlal Durgaprasad of Salem Market, Madras, dispatched consignment of 250 bags of Topica Starches on 27-3-1979 and the goods were delivered at the railway station for transportation after obtaining railway receipt No. 036278. The goods were transported by the rail...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Shobha Vitthal Kolte and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom44; 2006(1)ALLMR188; 2006(1)BomCR468

Rebello F.I., J.1. The matter was on board for final hearing for confirmation of interim relief. Considering the narrow controversy and as reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 4, the main-petition was taken up for final hearing. Notices on respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not served. However, considering the controversy, notice on them is dispensed with.A few facts may be mentioned. The State has filed the present petition to challenge the order dated 12-11-2003 and 2-6-2004 passed by the Acting Chairman, Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission. The respondent No. 4 is the father of the respondent No. 1, a teacher working in the school run by respondent No. 3 society. From the record and the reply filed by Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, it appears that respondent No. 1 is the wife of Head Master of the school respondent No. 4 had filed complaint before the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission which was numbered as SHRC-09/2002/CR-1581/Adm/803. By communica...

Amru @ Amruta S/O Hariba Lamani (Rathod) Per Lrs. Jairam S/O Amruta Ra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR551; 2006(2)BomCR808; 2006(1)MhLj408

A.B. Naik, J.1. This petition was filed by Amru @ Amruta Hariba Lamani challenging the judgment and order dated 21-11-1989 passed by the learned Designated Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Case No. 70/A/88/L, allowing the appeal filed by Shri Ganpat Mahadu Hasabe and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Latur, dismissing the application filed by Amru for possession of land Survey No. 127 admeasuring 9A 2G situated at village Nitoor, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land').2. During pendency of this petition, the original petitioner Amru as well as original respondent-Ganpat have died and application for bringing heirs of deceased petitioner and respondent on record, was allowed by this Court on 8th July, 2005. As such, the proceedings are being prosecuted by the heirs of respective parties, (for the purpose of brevity the petitioners will be referred to as 'the tenant' and the respondents will be referred to as 'the respondent'...

Ramdas Anant Naik Vs. Jacob Fernandes and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 3(2006)BC271

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellant is the original complainant. He is challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Margao in Criminal Case No. 335/N/97/D. By the said judgment and Order dated 11th February, 2004, the Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act, for short).2. The brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Criminal Appeal are as under:The appellant filed a complaint against respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of the said Act in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Margao. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused had taken a friendly loan to the tune of Rs. 7, 50, 000/- from the complainant and had promised to pay the same with interest at the rate of 22% per annum. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant had borrowed part of amount from his friends and well-wishers and had given it to the ...

Atul Painters Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT483Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are job workers for M/s. Asian Paints and are discharging duty as per the price list of M/s. Asian Paints and claiming certain discounts from such Prices declared by M/s. Asian Paints. The dispute is on the claim of deduction on account of cash discounts and product discounts as offered by the trader, in this case i.e. M/s. Asian Paints.2. After hearing both sides and considering the issue involved and the fact that it is an undisputed position that the appellants are job workers for M/s. Asian Paints and by no stretch of interpretation, the assessable values can be arrived at based on traders selling price. The determination of valuation has to be as per the formula approved by the Constitutional Bench's decision in the case of Ujjagar Prints ; this matter is required to be disposed of in the light of the settled position. If the traders selling price on which duty is being discharged, less certain claims, is not less than the assessable value to be worked out by the co...

Bunty Foods (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, who had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 37,05,621.25 against M/s. Bunty Foods (I) Pvt. Ltd., and imposed a penalty of equal amount under the provisions of Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, holding that the seized goods are liable to confiscation and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 2000/-, and ordered recovery of interest as well as imposed a penalty of Rs. 3.00 lakhs on the Director Mr. Vinod Jashnani of M/s. Bunty Foods (I) Pvt. Ltd., and a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on M/s. Parle Products Ltd. 2. The duty demand has been confirmed on a part quantity of broken biscuits arisen in the course of manufacture of Parle-G Biscuits, on job work basis by M/s. Bunty Foods (I) Pvt. Ltd. Penalty has been imposed for non accountal of the broken biscuits as well as for non accountal of sugar syrup in the RG-1 register.3. We have heard both...

Shri H.A. Mafatlal, Managing Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for granting waiver of pre-deposit and the penalty imposed on the appellant and to stay its recovery.2. The Managing Director of M/s. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. is the appellant herein assailed the Order of the Commissioner of the Central Excise & Customs dated 28.01.2005.3. By Show Cause Notice dated 30.03.2001 issued to the company and as well as to this appellant proposes to demand the duty amount stated therein as against the company and proposing penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 against the appellant.4. The company approached the Hon'ble Settlement Commissioner for settlement of the case. The Settlement Commissioner had settled the case granting immunities from payment of interest, from imposition of penalty and also from prosecution under the Central Excise Act, as the company admitted its duty liability and making payment thereof. The appellant received a Notice dated 24.11.20...