Mumbai Court December 2006 Judgments

State Bank of India Vs. Moti Thawardas Dadlani and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR483

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1(A). Suit No. 1012 of 1983 is filed for a decree in the sum of Rs. 6,49,209.49/- with interest on Rs. 5,71,337.49/- at the rate of 18% pa. from the date of the suit till payment. In the alternative the plaintiffs have sought a decree against the Defendants in the sum of Rs. 1,17,364.60/- with interest at the rate of 18% on Rs. 1,05,928.58/- from the date of the suit till payment. The suit was originally filed by Dadlani Silk Stores and the present Defendant No. 2, Vishraj Garments Private Limited. By an amendment Dadlani Silk Stores were substituted by the present Plaintiff No. 1, Ramesh Thawardas Dadlani.(B) Suit No. 873 of 1983 is filed by the Defendants in Suit No. 1012 of 1983 for a decree in the sum of Rs. 58,435.44/-together with interest at the rate of 19.50% per annum. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in this suit were, at the material time, partners of Defendant No. 4, Dadlani Silk Stores (Original Plaintiff No. 1 in Suit No. 1012 of 1983).2. The parties agreed that the...

Kaushalyabai Biharilal Pateriya and ors. Vs. Hiralal Bhagwandas Gupta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR679; 2007(4)BomCR219

Chaudhari A.B., J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12-2-2002 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Amravati in Special Civil Suit No. 176 of 1999, declaring that the plaintiffs would get only 1/30th share each in the suit fields bearing Survey Nos. 2/5 and 3/4 of mouza Tarkheda, Pragane-Badnera, District Amravati, and 1 /6th undivided share in suit house and consequent rejection of the rest of the claims made by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.2. The Facts:Briefly stated, the appellants who are the original plaintiffs, filed a civil suit for partition and separate possession. The genealogical tree, which is undisputed, is reproduced below for convenience. Bhagwandas-Deokabai|______________________________________________________________________________Hiralal Chhakilal Kunjilal Chhotelal Jamnabai Kaushlyabai Motanbai(Dl) (D2) (D3) (Died) (D4) (P1) (P2)| | | |Tushar | _________________ |(D13) | | | || Tulsabai Mohan || (D18) (D19) || _____...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Navnath Baban Annadate and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2007)DMC508

M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respective parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal in Sessions Case No. 52/1994, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B read with 34 of I.P.C.3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:Deceased Sangita, daughter of PW1 Kalabai was married with accused No. 1 Navnath about one and half years before her death. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 are in-laws of the deceased, After marriage with accused No. 1 while she was cohabiting with her husband, there being harassment to the deceased on account of demand of Rs. 10,000, she had filed a complaint under Section 498A of IPC. The police after investigation of that case submitted charge-sheet against these accused alleging an offence under Section 498A of IPC and that case was pending. When the said case was pending, the accused agreed t...

Commissioner of Cus. (Export) Vs. Flamingo Overseas

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. None is present on the behalf of the Respondents in spite of notice.The Revenue has filed the ROM application against the Order No.A-216/WZB/2005/C-IV dated 31-1-2005 passed by the Tribunal wherein the Revenue has inter alia stated that the DEPB value claimed is of Rs. 1,29,577/- as against Rs. 25,579/- indicated in the said order. The learned DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the export value of the goods declared by the Respondent M/s. Flamingo Overseas is Rs. 9,19,774/-. Therefore, his submission is that looking into the DEPB benefit and the export value of the goods, the reduction of redemption fine and penalty would not appear to be correct as these values have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal.2. Besides, he also draws my attention to Paras 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the ROM application and submits that in view of the grounds taken therein the above application deserves to be allowed. He also submits that looking into the export value of the goods and the...

Shri Gangadhar Balgopal Nair Vs. Voltas Limited and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR621; 2007(1)BomCR1; [2007(112)FLR1011]; (2007)IILLJ655Bom; 2007(1)MhLj754

S.A. Bobde, J.1. A Division Bench while hearing Letters Patent Appeal No. 134 of 1995 has referred the following questions for answer by a larger Bench:Whether Model Standing Order 4-C as contained in the schedule I to the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Rules 1959 ipso facto applies to a temporary workman in an Industrial Establishment without its incorporation into a pre-existing certified standing order. 2. The Division Bench was hearing the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgement of the learned single Judge who held that Model Standing Order 4C did not automatically apply to the industrial establishment of the respondent No. 1 without amendment of its certified standing orders. Therefore, the appellant-workman is not entitled to the status of a permanent employee on completion of 240 days uninterrupted service. The Industrial Tribunal whose judgement was in question had held that the workman is entitled to such status of permanency becau...

SagiruddIn IsrailuddIn Mistry and Mrs. Shaheen Ara Salim Baig Vs. the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR627; 2007(1)BomCR899; (2007)109BOMLR160

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Mendadkar for the Petitioners. Mr. R.V. Govilkar for the Respondent No. 5 - who is main contesting respondent.2. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 10th June 2005 passed by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune, Exhibit 'A' to the petition. They have also further prayed to prohibit Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in relying upon the impugned order dated 10th June, 2005 and further claim declaration that the caste certificate dated 20th November, 1991 issued to the Petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 6 Tahsildar & Executive Magistrate, North Solapur, District Solapur, be declared valid, legal and subsisting.3. This petition which is filed on 5.6.2005 came for hearing earlier before the Division Bench on 21.6.2005, on that day ad interim stay was granted and it was adjourned to 23.6.2005. Then on 23.6.2005 Rule was issued and hearing was expedited and interim stay in terms of praye...

Ashok Kumar Kachrulal Zanwa Vs. Bajrang Venkat Kadam and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2007)BC380; 2007(2)BomCR434

M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for respective parties.2. By this application original complainant seeks leave to prefer appeal against acquittal. The complainant had filed complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. According to complainant there was a business deal between complainant and accused. Accused used to purchase fertilizers on credit. On 28.10.2002 account of Rs. 1,53,400/- was due towards accused, as demand of the same was made. After that demand dated 28.10.2002, on 11.12.2002 accused issued a cheque bearing No. 028200 for Rs. 1,40,000/- in favour of the complainant. Same cheque later on came to be dishonoured as offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act was alleged to have been committed.3. At the trial, accused put forth a specific defence that he has repaid the entire amount and no dues were outstanding with him. In support of his defence he has examined himself and one Arun Tukan an employee from R.C.F. who has produced on record...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Elder Healthcare Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal is the classification of "Tiger Balm", manufactured by the respondents herein - whether under CET Sub-heading 3003.39 as a Ayurvedic medicament, attracting duty at the rate of 8%, as claimed by the manufacturers and upheld by the Commissioner, or under GET Sub-heading 3003.10 as F or P medicaments other than those medicines which are exclusively Ayurvedic...attracting duty at the rate of 15% for certain period and 16% thereafter, as contended by the Revenue. The period in dispute is December 1996 to February 2000.2. According to the Revenue the assessee has wrongly claimed (he-product as Ayurvedic Medicine for the reason that the product owed its origin to Chinese traditional medicine, and the formulations, brand name, logo, product goodwill etc. had been received under licence from M/s. Haw Par Healthcare Ltd. Singapore for exclusive manufacture, marketing and sale in India. The Singapore company is also the proprietary owner of the goods...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Gsicl and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC246

1. All the four sets of appeal filed by the Revenue against three different orders passed by Commissioner of Customs dropping the demands against the respondents and vacating the show cause notice, are being disposed of by a common order inasmuch as, an identical issue is involved in all of them. We have heard Shri K.M. Mondal the Ld.Consultant appearing for the Revenue and Shri V.S. Nankani, Ld.Advocate appearing for the Respondents.2. As per facts on record M/s. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad, (hereinafter referred to as M/s. GSICL) imported consignments of card board under the claim of benefit of Notification No. 79/95 dt. 31.3.1995 for duty free clearances under DEEC Scheme, against advance licences. It is seen that a per the intelligence gathered by the Revenue, consignments in question imported under different bills of entries at different point of times were put under investigation. Samples were drawn and sent for testing. The statements of various persons...

The Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., a Company Registered Under the Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR338(Bom); 2007(1)BomCR830; 2007(1)MhLj673

R.M. Lodha, J.1. This Arbitration Suit has been referred to the Division Bench in view of the order dated 19th April, 1988, passed by the learned single Judge.2. The Reference order dated 19th April, 1988, reads thus: CORAM: S.N. Variava, J.Date : 19th April 1988.ORDERThis Petition is under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The facts briefly stated are that on 24th April, 1984, the Plaintiffs submitted their tender to the Defendants. The contract between the parties was arrived at on 7th February 1985. Clause 13.6 of the Contract provides as under:13.6. The contract shall be governed by the General price variations clause as under:Adjustment for variation in prices of materials labour and fuel shall be determined in the manner prescribed below:The Percentage component of various items in this contract on which variation in price admissible shall be:Material component 30% Labour component 30% Fuel component 5% Fixed component at 35% shall not be considered for any price variation.If, i...