Mumbai Court February 2006 Judgments

Shaila Jaywant Jadhav Vs. Sulochana Vasant Bhavsar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR493; 2006(6)MhLj305

S.R. Sathe, J.1. Appellant, the original defendant No. 2 in Special Civil Suit No. 115 of 1984 has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Nashik in Civil Appeal No. 248 of 1992 whereby decree for specific performance passed in favour of the plaintiff was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed with cost. For the sake of convenience hereafter the parties shall be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:On April 30, 1981 the defendant No. 2, father of defendant No. 1 agreed to sale two suit plots bearing, Nos. 16 and 17 each measuring 3010 sq.ft to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 30 per sq.ft and accepted amount of Rs. 6000/-. The defendant No. 1 accordingly executed the plot booking receipt for and on behalf of defendant No. 2 in favour of plaintiff. By virtue of the said receipt it was agreed that the plaintiff will pay second instalment of Rs. 2000/- within...

Pundole Shahrukh and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC442

2. This appeal has been filed against the Order of Commissioner who has ordered to have revoked the CHA licence No. 11/266 along with the forfeiture of the security deposit under Regulations 20 of CHALR, 2004.3. The appellants are contesting with the enquiry report dated 3-5-2005 as illegal without any substance as the same been submitted without factually conducting any enquiry. They have shown that with consequent to Tribunal order dated 11-11-2004 categorically stipulating "that the inquiry under CHALR Regulations be brought to its logical end within a period of three months from the receipt of that order, failing which the suspension order shall stand revoked." They approached to the Inquiry Officer and denied the charges by letter dated 18-10-2004 and confirmed about the proceedings in Appeal No. C/869/04 and thereafter approached the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Establishment Department who informed that since the Inquiry Officer has been changed they will be getting directio...

Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Star India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC582

1.1 These appeals, filed against a common Order-in Appeal No. BR/07 to 08/m-IV/2005 dated 25.1.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai - IV are being disposed by this common order.By the impugned Order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of Service Tax, on the amounts received for activities undertaken for the principals. (who are broadcasting agencies not having office in India) as an 'advertising agency' service provider.2.1 Activities undertaken by M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter also referred to as the appellants) are recorded in Para 13 of the impugned order-in-appeal & the relevant portion is extracted below: (1) By M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. as per agreements entered into between M/s. Star Advertising Sales BV of Netherlands and M/s. star India Pvt. Ltd. [the Appellant No. 2] and agreement between M/s. Satellite television Asian Region ltd., Hongkong and M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. [the Appellant No. 2] a. to solicit and book advert...

Shree Precoated Steel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The present appeal is against an order of Commissioner who has imposed a fine of Rs. 41,97,000/- in lieu of confiscation of "G.P. Steel colour coated sheets," seized from the premises of the appellants the matter was earlier remanded Vide this Tribunal order No. C1/2193-97/WZB/99 dated 26/5/99 directing the Commissioner to examine the appellants contention that there was an all Industry's practice of recording production in RG1 register only at the time of clearance and there after determine the matter.2. The appellants is a Public limited company engaged in the manufacture of aluminium plates, plains sheets, G.P. Colour coated steel G.P. coil etc; & holds Central Excise License since July, 1993. The main raw materials used by the appellants in its plant are aluminium sheets/coil, G.P. steel sheets/coils, paint and chemicals including isocyanate and polyols. The aluminium sheets/coil and G.P. steel/coil are first cleaned with chemicals and thereafter colour co...

Fdc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Certain bulk drugs were imported by the appellants at the port of Mumbai. They were to get these bulk drugs manufactured on loan licence basis at the premises of M/s. Savill Pharma Labs Pvt. Ltd. situated at Goregaon, Mumbai. They also sought the benefit of Customs duty under Notification No. 17/2001-CUS., under Serial No. 81 of the table therein. As per the conditions prescribed and this entry in the table to the Notification, they were required to comply with the provisions of Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. Rule 3 of the Rules specifies that the manufacturer has to give an undertaking that the said goods cleared at the concessional rate would be utilized in the manner prescribed under the Customs. These conditions have been fulfilled under the Rules by M/s. Savill Pharma Labs, Goregaon. The Customs authorities had denied the benefit by taking the view that the manufacturer has to be necessarily by the importe...

Vaijnath S/O Janardhan Zunjkar Vs. Scrutiny Committee for Verification ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR554; 2006(3)MhLj536

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the respective Advocates. Petition is taken up for hearing. Respective Counsel waive service.2. In this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 6-6-2002 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad (respondent No. 1) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') invalidating his tribe claim.3. The petitioner claims to belong to 'Koli Mahadeo' Scheduled Tribe. He is a native of village Ashiv, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. Not only parents but most of his near relatives are illiterate. The petitioner has taken education up to Bachelor of Arts (B. A.). The petitioner applied for and was selected as Driver in Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation, on a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe.4. The caste/(tribe) claim of the petitioner was referred by the employer to the Committee for the purpose of verification. After conducting school and home inquiry and giving an opportunity to the petit...

State Bank of India Vs. Ramkrishna S/O Jairamji Sakharkar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR527; III(2007)BC84; 2006(5)BomCR746; 2006(3)MhLj630

V.A. Naik, J.1. When this second appeal came up for admission before this Court on 8-8-1991, this Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law formulated as under:Whether a suit for recovery of loan which is secured by creation of registered charge on the property of debtor, is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if the recovery is based on the charged properties?2. In order to deal with the controversy in this second appeal as well as the substantial question of law involved therein, it is necessary to narrate a few facts which give rise to the substantial question of law, in this second appeal.The appellant-State Bank of India is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 16,179.49 against the respondents-defendants. The plaintiff pleaded that defendant No. 1, namely Ramkrishna approached the plaintiff-Bank and requested for advancement of loan for agricultural development purposes with the limit of Rs. 8,000/-. The advance ...

Yogesh S/O Madhavrao Kakulte Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR322; 2006(3)MhLj691

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Rule. Rule, is taken up for hearing forthwith, with the consent of respective Advocates. 2. In this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 12-9-2002 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') invalidating his tribe claim. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner belongs to 'Mahadeo Koli' Scheduled Tribe. Caste certificate was issued in favour of his father by Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioner was taking education. He required caste certificate. For this purpose, he approached the Sub-Divisional Officer. Although his father was holding the caste certificate, the SDO refused to issue caste certificate. The petitioner was, therefore, constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 4572/1997 seeking a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer for issuing caste certificate in his favour. This Court allowed the petition with a direction to the SDO to issue the...

Balkisan D. Sanghvi Vs. Kiron D. Sanghvi and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR222; 2006(3)BomCR648; 2006(4)MhLj273

Vazifdar S.J., J.1. This is the plaintiff's Chamber Summons for amendment of the suit.2. The suit is for the administration of the estate of the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff's father and mother expired on 18.3.2002 and 28.12.2004 respectively. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 6 are the plaintiff's brothers. Defendant No. 3 is the plaintiff's sister. Defendant No. 4 is the husband of defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 5 is the son of defendant Nos. 3 and 4.3. By this Chamber Summons the plaintiff seeks to add six respondents to the Chamber Summons as defendant Nos. 7 to 12. The plaintiff also seeks by the Chamber Summons to challenge the alienation in respect essentially of two properties, one to respondent No. 1 and the other to respondent Nos. 2 to 6. Respondent No. 1, Prolific Consultancy Services (Mumbai) Private Limited is a closely held company in which defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the only shareholders. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are members of the Khandelwal family who are not related ...

Bhatinda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. M.V. x-press Nuptse and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom311; 2006(3)BomCR888

Vazifdar S.J., J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for arrest of the vessel m.v. 'X-PRESS NUPTSE', the first defendant and for a decree against the defendants in the sum of US $ 63,760=21 together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till payment. Defendant No. 2, Fintas Shipping Company Limited is the owner of the said vessel.2. Original defendant No. 2 was described as 'Any person or persons who may be concerned either beneficially or otherwise with the first defendant vessel'. Thereafter an order of arrest was passed on 4.5.2000. The charterer M/s. Express Container Lines (U.K.) Ltd. appeared at the hearing of the Notice of Motion on 10.5.2000. By an order dated 10.5.2000, the learned Judge permitted the vessel to be released on defendant No. 1 furnishing a bank guarantee. Pursuant, to an order dated 14.9.2000 the owners of defendant No. 1 - Fintas Shipping Company Limited were impleaded as defendant No. 2. Original defendant No. 2 was continue...