Mumbai Court September 2005 Judgments

Santosh @ Dankya Subhash Gaikwad Vs. D.N.Jadhav, Commissioner of Polic ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)MhLj88

S.R. Sathe, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order of detention passed against him by the Respondent No.1, the Commissioner of Police, Pune on 17.11.2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous activities of slum lords, boot leggers, drug Offenders and dangerous persons Act, 1981. (For the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The order of detention is based on two Criminal cases and four in camera statements. One Vijay Keshav Gaikwad, resident of Yeravada, filed a complaint alleging that on 28.4.2004 at about 8.30 a.m. the petitioner entered his house and asked to provide liquor. When he refused, the petitioner abused him and assaulted him with sickle. On the basis of the said complaint the police registered C.R.No.149 of 2004 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of I.P.C. The p...

Pandurang G. Dodke Vs. Lanka P. Kshirsagar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom427; 2006(2)BomCR785

ORDERA.H. Joshi, J. 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Heard finally.2. During pendency of regular Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2000, the Appellant filed application (Exh. 17), apparently under Rule 27 of Order 41 of Civil P. C. It contained a prayer for permission to file document, namely Earnest Note, dated 12th May, 19.86.3. Admittedly, a xerox copy of this document was on record in the Trial Court, and was marked as Article 'A'.4. In this application, what is stated reads as follows:'The original Isar Patta (Earnest Note) was misplaced and could not be traced out in spite of diligent efforts and as such, the original one was not filed on record in the lower Court. Now the original Earnest Note has been traced out. The said document is material one and goes to the root of the case'5. In second para of the application, a mutation entry, which is a public document, is sought to be produced. No explanation, whatsoever, is incorporated in it towards failure to file that doc...

Raghunath Rajaram Patil and ors. Vs. Harishchandra Pandurang Gaikwad a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom78; 2006(1)ALLMR662; 2006(1)MhLj79

Ranjana Desai, J. 1. Rule. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing forthwith.2. The petitioners are opponents in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 102/03. The said application is filed by respondents 1 to 3 under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('the said Act' for short) praying for grant of probate of the Will of deceased Anandibai Kashinath Patil dated 23rd July, 1997. The petitioners filed their written statement contesting the claim of respondents 1 to 3. It is the petitioner's case that the said Anandibai died intestate and she had never executed any Will.3.On 6th August, 2004 the petitioners filed an application under Section 295 of the said Act, praying that necessary orders be passed for treating the probate proceedings as a suit and for necessary inquiry regarding the alleged Will and the question of title of the property in view of the written statement filed by the petitioners. The petitioners also prayed for transferring the said proceedings to the C...

Jalgaon Jamod Taluka Kharedi Vikri Sanstha Ltd. Vs. Shivhari Pandurang ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR237; 2006(1)BomCR696; 2006(1)MhLj653

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Mohta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mishra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Smt. Bodade, learned AGP for respondent No. 4. Nobody appears for respondent No. 3, though served.2. The grievance made by Shri Mohta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was ordered and was conducted by respondent No. 3. After respondent No. 3 submitted his report in that enquiry, holding respondents No. 1 and 2 guilty of misconduct and ordering recovery from them, respondents No. 1 and 2 filed appeal under Section 152 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before respondent No. 4 - Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court. He contends that such appeal was not tenable and it was premature inasmuch as no formal order as contemplated by Section 88 of the Act was passed by any officer of the Co-operative depart...

Balaji Constructions Co. and ors. Vs. Lira Siraj Shaikh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom106; 2006(1)ALLMR620; 2006(1)BomCR698

Lodha R.M., J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of the Original Plaintiffs. Their suit came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, being hit by the provisions contained in Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 2. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that there was nothing on record to indicate that the agreements dated 3-9-1990 and 2-2-1991, of which specific performance is sought, were entered into during the ordinary course of business of the first Plaintiff firm with the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, bar of section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 was not attracted. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Haldiram Bhujiawala and Anr. v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and Anr. : [2000]1SCR1247 . 3. The Appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plaintiffs') filed a suit against the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as 't...

Nidhi Polyester Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A very short issue is involved in the present appeal. Benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 20/94-C.E., dated 1-3-94 and Notification No. 18/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 has been denied to the appellant's product stitched paper, which comes into existence after the paper is bonded with HDPE fabric and pass through rollers in order to bond the two together with the help of liquid LDPE.Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the revenue's appeal and has rejected the assessee's claim of exemption by observing as under :- I have carefully gone through the case records. The issue in the present appeal is whether assessee are eligible for availing the concessional rate of 20% adv. as per Sl. No. 6 of Notification No. 20/94, dated 1-3-1994 and Sl. No. 22 of Notification No. 18/95, dated 16-3-1995, respectively. From the case records, it is seen that as per Sl. Nos. 6 & 22 of Notification Nos. 20/94 and 18/95, the excisable goods falling under CSH 4811.30 & 4823.9...

Shri Dinesh Khimavat Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed under the provisions of Rule 209-A of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The manufacturer M/s. Vardhaman Polymer Industries are engaged in the manufacture of plastic, moulded parts of domestic mixer falling under chapter sub-heading 8509.00 of the CETA. In October, 1992 searches were conducted and it was found by the authorities that the manufacturer has sold the goods manufactured by them to 67 parties in a clandestine way. For that purpose they also obtained certain kachcha challans from the premises of the said factory. The statement recorded from various persons, one of which is a partner namely Pratik D. Jain, admits inter alia as reflected in paragraph 8 of the order that they sold the goods to various persons including the purchaser company by the name of Kanchan Kitchen Aid Pvt. Ltd. The appellant is a director of the said company. In his statements recorded, the appellant had denied having purchased t...

Al-falah Exports Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, it is found that the Ld. Advocates reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Ltd., 2004(177) ELT 937 setting aside penalties under Customs Act, 1962, since duties had been discharged prior to the issue of the show cause notice, alleging clandestine removal of the goods and the Ld. DR's reliance on the decision of another Bench in the case of Saheli Synthetic Pvt. Ltd and Ors. v. CCE, Kandla vide Order No. A/681 to 683/WZB/2005-CII dtd 19/7/05 where the Bench held that the Larger Bench decision in the case of Machino Montell (I) Ltd., would not absolve the penalty consequences in case where clandestine removal is involved.Since the decision in case of Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Ltd., 2004 (177) ELT 937 also relied upon the decision of Machino Montell Ltd of the Tribunal in case of clandestine removal, there is apparent conflict in the two decisions interpretation and application of the Larger Bench decision in cases under...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sarla Polyester Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(194)ELT416Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The issue that the respondent had filed a refund claim of Rs. 2,86,400/- paid as supervising charges for the officers required at 100% EOU during the period July, 1998 to September, 2000. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 22.10.2001 as regards the refund claim on the ground that the charges were paid by the assessee on their own wishes and at the time of payment no protest was lodged at per Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules framed thereunder and there were no provisions under the said Act to refund such supervision charges. It was also alleged in the notice that the party had included the amount of supervision charges in the assessable value of the goods and whereby passed the incidence to their buyers.3. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), relying upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Shri Pipe Ltd. v. Union of India 1995 (79) ELT 05 (Raj), set aside the order of the lower authority.4. The provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 especially Section 35B ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Empire Plastic Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT447Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Assessees, the respondent herein, were availing SSI benefit under notification 8/96 by clearing the goods at NIL rate of duty wthout availing Modvat Credit. It was noticed that in the months of February 1997, though they had cleared the goods at NIL rate, they had availed credit in the month of January 1997. On instruction of the Range Superintendent, they reversed the entry of credit of Rs. 77550/- under protest on 30/1/02. Subsequently refund claim filed, received in Division Office on 3/5/02, on the grounds that he credit was taken before filing of a declaration under Section 173B & they had not utilized the same for home consumption. The claim was rejected. "It is not dispute that the duty has been paid under protest. The appellant has submitted a copy of relevant page of RG23 A Pt II which shows an endorsement by the appellant that Central Excise duty amount of Rs. 79550/- has been debited under protest vide entry no 38 dtd 31/1/02. It is further seen that he refund claim ...