Mumbai Court September 2005 Judgments

Shri Krishnaji Ganesh Unde (Since Deceased by His Heirs and Legal Repr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR666; 2005(4)MhLj1174

S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 31st July, 1991 in Revision Application No. MRT.P.V.7/91 (Tnc.B.125/1991). By the impugned order, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal; hereinafter referred to as 'the MRT', has remanded the matter for re investigation on the point of delivery of possession of the suit land to the petitioners and to find out whether the petitioners still continue in possession of the suit land. 2. The petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of the MRT to entertain the revision in view of the finality clause in Section 73 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'; which reads as follows : '73. Execution of order for payment of money or for restoring possession. - (1) Any sum the payment of which has been directed by an order of the Mamlatdar or the Tribunal including an order awarding costs shall be recoverable from the person ordered to pay th...

Vasant Balkrishna Wale Vs. Vithal Mahadeo Deshmukh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR669; 2005(4)MhLj957

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. The petitioner by the present petition seeks direction for payment of interest over the amount deposited after a period of about 9 years from the date of the award in the proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'. 2. The undisputed facts in the case in hand are that the award under Section 11 of the said Act was passed on 15-11-1978 and the possession of the land was taken on 16-12-1978. While the amount awarded under the said award to the tune of Rs.96,648.88 ps. was deposited in the Court while making reference under Section 30 of the said Act only on 8-10-1987, no amount of interest over and above the sum awarded under the award dated 15-11-1978 was deposited in the reference Court while depositing the awarded amount of Rs.96,648.88 ps. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, while drawing attention to Section 34 of the said Act submitted that it was the duty of the Collect...

Smt. Shevanta Rama Waingade and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR659; 2006(2)MhLj463

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. The petitioners challenge the amended award dated 2-7-1998 on the ground that the amendment of the nature which has been carried out is not permissible in terms of the provisions of law comprised under Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' and secondly that the same has been passed without notice to the petitioners. 2. The undisputed facts in the case in hand are that the final award was passed on 28-5-1998. However, thereafter notices were issued in terms of Section 13A(2) regarding amendment carried out to the award on 2-7-1998. The amendment related to the calculation of the final amount of compensation payable to the interested persons. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that once the final award was passed, it was not permissible for the Land Acquisition Officer to amend the award without prior notice to the petitioners or the interested persons and in no case the compe...

Kamlabai Purushottam Dhut and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR380; 2006(1)MhLj532

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Gilda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Loney, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.2. Present petitioners who are legal representatives of original petitioner Purushottam challenged the order dated 16-4-1993 passed by respondent No. 2 declaring 4.22 acres of land as surplus. The said order is passed in revisional jurisdiction under Section 45 of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961; (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act for short).3. As the facts are not in dispute and question raised is only of tenability of revision, it would be appropriate to state the facts in brief. Purushottam filed return under Section 12 of the Ceiling Act and after due inquiry, respondent No. 3 declared 9.09 acres of land as surplus under Section 21 of Ceiling Act. The issue regarding the validity of sale dated 2-5-1972 by which he sold survey No. 26/2 of mouza Belkhed, area 4.22 acres was also considered by re...

Valeriano Barretto Vs. State of Goa

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)MhLj393

ORDERN.A. Britto, J.1. Rule.2. Heard forthwith.3. Heard Ms. Asha Desai, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Winnie Coutinho, the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State/respondent.4. The petitioner herein is accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 2/2004/1, now pending trial before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Margao.5. In this petition, the petitioner has raised two grievances, firstly, he complains that he is suffering from knee ailment which is being treated at the Goa Medical College, Bambolim. As far as this grievance is concerned, the very letter dated 30-6-2005 of the Assistant Superintendent of Sub Jail Sada, Vasco-de-Gama shows that the petitioner is being regularly treated at the Goa Medical College and as per advice given the prescribed medicines are being given to him regularly. Nothing, therefore, survives in that grievance. In case, the petitioner is entitled to bail on medical grounds, it would be a different matter and the...

Municipal Corporation Vs. R.C. Baania

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(107)FLR1205]

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Writ Petition No. 401 of 2001 has been filed by the Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan and Dombivli and Writ Petition No. 1042 of 2002 has been filed by the concerned employee. Both these writ petitions impugned the order of the Industrial Court dated 31st July, 2000.The workman was employed in 1978 as an X-Ray Technician in the Shastri Nagar Hospital run by the Dombivli Municipal Council. On 1st October, 1983, the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act and constituted the Municipal Corporation comprising the Dombivli Municipal Council, Badlapur Municipal Council and Ambernath Municipal Council. Certain other village panchayats surrounding these areas were also notified and included in the new Municipal Corporation. This Municipal Council or the Corporation was known as Kalyan Municipal Corporation'. Accordingly, the services of the workman wen; deemed to have been merged with the Kalyan Munic...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Amisha Engg. Company

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Commissioner held that the otters 'NNT inscribed on "Steel Eye" and "Steel Jaw" of the shuttles manufactured by the respondents is not a brand name belonging to another person who is not eligible for SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. It was his contention that 'eye' and 'jaw' were purchased by the respondent from one M/s. New Nirmal Industries and with the letters 'NNI' inscribed on them and were fitted into the 'shuttles' manufactured by the respondent. This is an admitted fact.3. The Revenues' contention that the respondent was manufacturing goods with a brand name belonging to another person who is not eligible for SSI exemption and therefore was not entitled to SSI exemption himself is devoid of any evidence. The letters found on the 'eye' and 'jaw' of the shuttle did denote that the said two parts of the shuttle were manufactured by someone in the market. The fact that the respondent used those parts in the manufacture-of shuttle does not mean that he is using...

Zenith Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arising out of two orders-in-original involve common issues and are hence heard together and disposed off by this common order.2. Appeal No. C/572, 583,584, 589, 687 & 688/02 arise out of the Commissioner's order dt. 18.3.2002. Appeal No. C/572, 684, 685 & 691/-2002 arise out of Commissioner's order dt. 22.3.2002.3. Vide order dt. 18.3.2002 the Commissioner of Customs has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 37,02,753/- on two consignments of silver bars of imported by M/s. Adani Exports (hereinafter referred to as importer) under Section 28 along with appropriate interest in terms of Section 28AB, by denying the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.117/94-Cus, dt. 27.4.1997, held that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and (o) but since the goods were not available, has not ordered confiscation thereof and inter alia imposed penalties equal to duty amount under Section 114A on the importer and penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs each un...

Speedfam India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of abrasive machines and lapping and polishing machines at their factory in Rabale Navi Mumbai, in technical collaboration with M/s Speedfam Co Ltd., Japan. In terms of the technical collaboration agreement entered into between them and the foreign collaborators, they are required to pay a lump sum fee of US $50000/- for the technical know-how to the foreign collaborator. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs found that the royalty and the technical know-how fee paid by them to the foreign collaborators was not relatable tot eh imported goods, namely components raw materials required for manufacture of the machines in India, and also found that it is not a condition of sale and accordingly he accepted the transaction value as per Rule 4(3) (A) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.2. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who accepted the contention of the department and, held that technical know...

Pam Pharma and Allied Machinery Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of today's notice of hearing having been sent to him well in advance. Accordingly, we have heard Shri Vimlesh Kumar, Id. SDR and have gone through the impugned order.2. The disputed issue is as regards the correct classification of the appellant's product "CAM" manufactured by the appellants. The Revenue has classified the same under Heading 8483.00 as against the appellant's claim of classification under Heading 8479.00. Duty of Rs. 93,101.15, stands confirmed by the authorities below. For better appreciation of the two headings, the same are reproduced below :- 8483.00 Transmission shafts (including cam shafts and crank shafts) and cranks; bearing housings and plain shafts bearings, gears and gearing, ball screws, gear boxes and other speed chargers, including torque cover converters; flywheels and pulleys, including pulley blocks; clutches and shaft couplings (including universal joints). 8479.00 Machines and mechanical applia...