Mumbai Court February 2006 Judgments

Collector of Goa and anr. Vs. Smt. Vinodini Vinayak Joshi and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom222; 2006(6)ALLMR196

ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. Since the common questions of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. In both these petitions, the respondents had submitted the sale deeds for registration before the Sub-Registrar of Bicholim in respect of the plots purchased by them. The value of the plots purchased by them had been shown as Rs. 9/ p.s.m. The Sub-Registrar of Bicholim having found the valuation of the properly to have been done much below the market value of the property, referred the matter under Section 47(1)(A) of the Indian Stamp Act to the revenue authorities for necessary action. Pursuant to the said reference, the Collector issued the show cause notices to the concerned parties on 12th November, 1997, and after hearing the parties, passed an order dated 8th January, 1999 holding that the market price of the plot was undervalued by R...

Menino Fernandes Vs. Gabriel Fernandes

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR859; 2006(6)MhLj425

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard the Advocates for the parties Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the Order dated 27th September, 2005 passed by the trial Court, Quepem rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of his plaint. The trial Court has rejected the application solely on the ground that the proposed amendment would result in allowing a plea to be introduced in the pleadings which is inconsistent with and disruptive of the original plea.3. A plain reading of the application for amendment discloses that the petitioner has sought to amend the plaint on the ground of certain plea raised by the respondents in the written statement denying the title of the petitioner, Undisputedly, the original suit is for injunction simpliciter against the respondents whereby the respondents were sought to be restrained from interfering in the property of the petitioner including the part of the house situated in the property, while ...

international Shipping Agency Vs. Commr. of Cus. (General)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides in this matter of Early Hearing & stay and the appeal against suspension of a license issued under Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations. The matter is taken up for disposal after considering the submissions made. The following order is passed in the appeal. Whereas serious misconduct has been noticed against M/s. International Shipping Agency, CHA No. 11/1107 wherein the CHA was actively involved in the clearance of imported goods i.e. Man made polyster dyed/printed fabrics and polyster filament yarn' on behalf of fake importer M/s. Sabina Enterprises. These goods have been cleared duty free under three fraudulently obtained DEEC Licenses and subsequently diverted to the domestic market in violation of the DEEC Scheme resulting in huge loss of revenue to the Central Government. The proprietor of the CHA firm Shri Chandrasekher R. Shukla was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody for his active involvement in these fraud cases. Further the s...

thermon Heat Tracers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC92

1. The appellants imported certain spares and components which were supplied by their principals abroad. On valuation was done following and an order was passed by the Asstt. Collector of Customs GVC/SVB on 27-9-94 enhancing the declared FOB value by 20%. This order was ex parte. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) ordered the remand.2. In remand the Dy. Commissioner found that the appellants were a subsidiary of a company in USA which held 70% of the share capital in the Indian Company. The appellant herein the Indian company was manufacturing heat tracing cable and heat transfer cements in technical assistance with the company in USA. They were importing spares/warranty spares from their collaborators which are impugned herein.3.1 They had also imported earlier capital goods machinery and equipments from the said collaborators in the year 1992-93. The Dy.Commissioner on basis of the case records on document furnished and submits made held- The Indian company has acquired technical ...

JabIn Akhtar Shirgonkar and ors. Vs. Samshad Iqbal Mukadam and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR595; 2006(2)BomCR9; 2006(2)MhLj555

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 waive service. Learned A.G.P appears for respondent Nos. 8,9 & 13. Service on respondent Nos. 10 to 12 dispensed with. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. The petitioners by this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge the order dated 26th December, 2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division in Village Panchayat (V.P) Appeal No. 383 of 2005 and the order dated 17th October, 2005 passed by the Additional Collector, Ratnagiri in Grampanchayat Appeal (S.R.) No. 35 of 2005.3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 filed the above Grampanchayat Appeal invoking the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector under Section 33(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Village Panchayat Act'). They are the members of Grampanchayat, Karla, Taluka & District: Ratnagiri. They challenged the elections to the posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of this Grampanchayat. petitioner ...

Ratnagiri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of G ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom132; 2006(4)ALLMR564; 2006(3)BomCR163; 2006(2)MhLj661

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant record. Admit. Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, matter heard finally forthwith as short question isinvolved. 2. This Appeal is against the order dated 24th January 2005 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the Suit preferred by the Appellants. Following order came to be passed : Plaintiff and Advocate absent. Mr.Sonawane-Patil, Advocate for B.M.C. Writ of Summons is not served. The plaint itself is required to be rejected. Suit dismissed. No order as to costs. Record and proceeding to record proceedings.3. The specific grievance of the Appellants before this Court is that the question of serving Defendant Corporation did not arise as the said Defendant was directed to waive service of the Suit and the Notice of Motion in terms of the order dated 31st March 2001. To support this position, reliance is placed on the Roznama dated 31st March 2001. The said order reads thus : Mr. Kansara, advocat...

Sadichha Mahila Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra at the Instance of Sec ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR488; 2006(3)BomCR107; 2006(2)MhLj528

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Shri. S. S. Lanke learned counsel for the petitioner is absent when called.2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated September 15, 1997 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Mr. Haribhau Bagade, the then Minister for Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Maharashtra).3. On May 23, 1991, the Government of Maharashtra issued an advertisement in the newspaper for allotment of a fair price shop (commonly known as 'ration shop') at Koparigaon, District Nasik. Seven parties including the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 made an application for the allotment of the fair price shop to them. By an order dated 30th January, 1992/ 1st February, 1992, the respondent No. 2 -the Controller of Rationing, after enquiry held that the petitioner should be allotted the fair price shop. The order stated that it would become effective after the expiry of the period of revision under clause-30 of the Maharashtra Foodgrains Distribution (Second) Order of 1966 (for short, 't...

Hukmichand H. JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR310; 2006(2)MhLj717

J. P. Devadhar, J. 1. This petition is filed to challenge the orders dated 4th February, 1992, 29th October, 1992 and 11th June, 1993 (Exhibits I, M,O to the petition), passed by the licensing authorities rejecting the application dated 3-8-1989 made by the petitioner for issuance of REP Licence against the exports effected in May-June 1989.2. The only ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner as set out in the order dated 4-2-1992 is that the petitioner had furnished the Registration-cum-Membership Certificate (RCMC) on 24-1-1992 i.e. after a period of two years from the period of export.3. It is not in dispute that along with the application dated 3-8-1989 the petitioner had forwarded the RCMC Certificate dated 2nd April, 1985 issued by the Jem and Jewellary Export Promotion Council, Bombay valid for four years w.e.f. 16th April, 1985. Period of four years from 16-4-1985 would expire on 15-4-1989. However, in the said RCMC Certificate the expiry date mentioned was 15-4-1...

Mahavir Tea Company and ors. Vs. Additional Collector and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR168; 2006(4)BomCR853; 2006(3)MhLj210

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the concurrent orders passed by the authorities under C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises And Rent Control Order, 1949, granting permission to present respondent No. 2 (through legal heirs) to terminate their tenancy under Clause 13(3)(iv), (v) and (vi) of said Order. Clause 13(3)(iv) deals with change of user, while Clause 13(3)(vi) permits landlord to terminate the tenancy on account of his bona fide need. Permission under Clause 13(3)(v) already stands rejected by both authorities to respondent and hence, said issue is not considered in this petition.2. The respondent-landlord filed proceedings under Clauses 13(3)(iv), (v) and (vi) of Rent Control Order on 16-6-1988 against the present petitioners and stated that he is occupying about 550 sq. feet of house at mezzanine floor in the suit structure and his family consists of 12 members. He contended tha...

Miyakhan Bhurekhan Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ2233

ORDER1. Heard Mr. N.A. Badar the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.G. Loney, learned A.P.P. for respondents2. Rule returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties.3. The action denying a furlough to the prisoner is under challenge. The petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life. He applied for grant of furlough leave on 17-5-2005 and the copy of the same was submitted to the Commissioner of Police Amravati for getting prisoner's police report. The Commissioner of Police forwarded adverse report to the D.I. G. Prison, Nagpur vide letter dated 24-6-2005. Considering the said report D.I.G. Prison Nagpur rejected petitioner's application for grant of furlough on 8-7-2005. Furlough is denied on the ground that the Additional Commissioner of Police, Amravati has given adverse report against the petitioner and on the second ground that the petitioner is involved in two more offences and they are pending before the court. One more ground put forward wh...