Mumbai Court October 2006 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Swanand Engineer and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR500

Radhakrishnan S., J.1. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had raised a preliminary objection that the very application filed by the appellants herein under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) before the learned Addl. Civil Judge, S.D., Vasco-digamma itself was clearly time barred and as such the learned Addl. Civil Judge, S.D., Vasco-digamma could not have entertained the aforesaid application at all and pass the order therein.2. In that behalf Mr. Thali, the learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out from the record that the award was duly made and signed by the Sole Arbitrator on 4 December, 1997. On the very same day notice under Section 14(1) of the said Act was issued to the appellants as well as the respondent. Mr. Thali also pointed out that the award was duly filed the before the learned Addl. Civil Judge S.D., Vasco-digamma on 26 December, 1997 by the respondent herein and the same was duly regist...

Sadashiv B. Nadkarni Vs. Deputy Collector (Rev.) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR484

Kakade P.V., J.1. Both these appeals arise out of common award granted by the Additional District Judge, Panaji under reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. First Appeal No. 287 of 2002 is filed by the claimant as he was not satisfied with the award granted by the Additional District Court, whereas First Appeal No. 166 of 2003 is filed by the State against the enhanced compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge in Land Acquisition reference No. 37/1995. Hence, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Facts giving rise to the dispute in a nutshell are that vide notification published in the Official Gazette dated 21/05/1992, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), the State Government acquired land admeasuring 3900 sq. metres from Survey Nos. 25/1 and 25/2 (3500 sq. metres from Survey No. 25/ 1 and 400 sq. metres from Survey No. 25/2) of Cotarli Village of Sanguem Taluka for public p...

Ramu Pandu Gavade Since Deceased by His Heirs and Lrs. Shivaji Ramchan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR288; 2007(1)MhLj467

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This writ petition arises from the order dated 28-7-1986 rendered by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Islampur, on the application at Exhibit-6 in Regular Darkhast No. 193 of 1968. By the impugned order, the application at Exhibit-6 filed by the petitioners-defendants purportedly under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC'), has been rejected.2. This litigation has a chequered history. I propose to make a reference to the factual matrix, to the extent as may be necessary and relevant for adjudication of the questions raised in this petition. The darkhast proceedings, in which the petitioners filed the application at Exhibit-6, arise from the judgment and decree dated 12-10-1968 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 25 of 1968. The said suit was filed by one Ramchandra Vishnu Kulkarni. It appears that Ramchandra Kulkarni died on 5-12-1972. His four sons, viz. Narayan, Govind, Ashok, Hindurao and his wife Kamlabai were brought on record in the darkhas...

Vicco Laboratories, Properietor Vicco Products Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)MhLj738

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. We have heard at length Sri V. R. Manohar, Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. B. Choudhary, Advocate for the respondents. We have also perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties.2. The petitioner by this petition challenges the show cause notice dated 29th April, 2005 on the ground that the respondents by the said show cause notice are seeking to reopen and reiterate the issues which have been finally concluded by the decision of this Court and that of the Apex Court in favour of the petitioner and that therefore, the said show cause notice is without jurisdiction and has been issued in arbitrary exercise of powers and it is an abuse of process of law.3. The petitioner is a manufacturer of various products including Vicco Vajradanti and Vicco Turmeric which are stated to be the ayurvedic medicines and the subject-matter of the petition. The respondents issued a show cause notice dated 8th November, 1976 requiring the petitioner to...

Sau. Sangeeta S. Zade Vs. State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ529

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati for having committed offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. She was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The facts which give rise to this appeal are thus:One Kalpana was married to Harish. They have a daughter named Divya. She was residing with her husband in a house constructed on the plot belonging lo her mother. Her father-in-law Shankar and step-mother-in-law Sangeeta were residing together separately in their house. Since the brother of the deceased Kalpana was in need of a house, Kalpana and her husband vacated the house and came to reside with Kalpana's father-in-law and step-mother-in-law. Since then step-mother-in-law Sangeeta i.e. the accused was quarrelling with her and was asking her to vacate the house. Sangeeta, the accused was also insisting upon her husband to transfer the house in her name. However since before 11/2 month prior to the incident mothe...

Chitra Haldipur Vs. Shahid Bhagat Singh Chs Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR393; 2007(4)BomCR432

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The dispute in the present case relates to the rights in respect of a plot of land bearing Plot No. 119, Shahid Bhagat Singh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Guru Nanak Nagar, Andheri-Kurla Road, Mumbai- 400 059. The first respondent is a Housing Society registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies' Act, 1925 and is a plot owners' Society. The original member to whom Plot No. 119 was allotted was one Shri Anup Singh Grover. The Society was formed and registered initially in the year 1958 and issued share certificates to its members in 1959. The Society purchased land at J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East) and constructed 96 blocks, of which Block bearing No. 119 was to the aforesaid member in 1961. The Society constructed the Ground Floor upon which members were permitted to construct an additional floor. In the year 1965, Shri Grover added the first floor to the existing ground floor structure. The ground floor structure has been designated by the Society as Bloc...

Nrb Bearings Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC95

1. Heard both sides. This is a case where the inputs i.e. cold rolled steel strips have been removed as such after partial processing such as excise duty. The department has alleged that the slitted steel strips are not liable for payment of duty on the ground that it does not amount to process of manufacturing activity. The assessee herein is engaged in the manufacture of ball and roller bearings for which the cold rolled steel strips were being used as raw materials by converting into slitted steel strips as per requirement. In the process of such use in the manufacturing activity of final products i.e. roller and ball bearings, if excess slitted steel strips found lying in the premises, they are cleared out on payment of duty of excise on higher value. The department has confirmed the demand for wrong availment of Cenvat Credit on the said materials and required the assessee to reverse the same. There is no dispute about payment of duty on the cleared good i.e. slitted steel strips...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ses Technology Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We have heard both sides on the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Airport extending the benefit of exemption from payment of CVD on cooling fans and heat sinks imported along with microprocessor in terms of notification No.6/2002-C.E.2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the literature produced to hold that the cooling fans and heat sinks are integral part of microprocessor. He also holds that the cooling fans and heat sinks are fully integrated with the micro processor and packed as one composite unit. Both micro processor as well as cooling fan have been classified by the original authority under the tariff heading 84733010 of the CTA. In these circumstances, the Revenue's contention that the benefit of the notification is not available is not tenable for the reason that as per the S. No. 261A of the table to the notification, micro processor of computers other than mother boards, floppy disc drive, hard disc drive an...

Sam Patel Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) XXIX, Mumbai dated 28-2-2003 passed for assessment year 1997-98. The first grievance of assessee relates to reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.The learned Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing did not press this ground of appeal, hence it is rejected.2. The next grievance of assessee relates to taxability of Rs. 22 lakhs.3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has joined the services of M/s. Eagle Shipping Agencies (P.) Ltd. in 1975. On 1-5-1996 he has resigned from the company and at that time he was working as a District Sales Manager. His retirement. benefits were granted to him.On 22-7-1996 the company had paid a sum of Rs. 22 lakhs, which has been treated by the assessee as ex gratia payment voluntarily paid by the employer without being any obligation to pay the same. Hence assessee claimed this amount as exempt from tax. The learned asse...

Gopinath Ganpatrao Pensalwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR504; 2006(6)BomCR6; 2007(1)MhLj819

Lodha R.M., J.1. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur has made the Civil Reference to this Court under Section 13 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (for short, the Act of 1876'). He has expressed his doubt whether he is precluded by the Act of 1876 from taking cognizance of the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from collecting or recovering the non-agricultural charges from the plaintiff for the years 1968 to 1989, as claimed by the defendants in their Notices dated 13th March, 1990 and 23rd March, 1990.2. Gopinath filed the suit against the State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Dist. Latur and the Tahsildar, Latur in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, praying for perpetual injunction against the defendants from collecting or recovering non-agricultural charges for the years 1968 to 1989 from the plaintiff, as claimed in the Notices dated 13th March, 1990 and 23rd March, 1990 and restraining them from increasing or enhancing...