Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Vishwas Narhari Sahastrabudhe Vs. Varda Vishwas Sahastrabudhe

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom286; 2006(6)ALLMR307; 2007(3)BomCR487

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.2.The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has raised the preliminary objection regarding non-maintainability of the appeal, on the ground that, the Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides for appeal only against 'judgment and order' and does not provide for appeal against a 'decree', and further that bearing in mind the difference in the meaning of the terms 'decree' and 'judgment' under the Code of Civil Procedure which are squarely applicable to the proceedings under the said Act as also considering the provisions of the Section 19(2) and (5) of the said Act which provides that no appeal would lie except against the judgment, it means that the decision which is appealable, under the said Act is only 'the Judgment' and not 'the decree'. Once the decree is issued the proceeding attain finality for all purposes and no appeal lies thereafter.3. Drawing attention to Section 19 r/w Section 2 of the Family Courts Act, the learned Advocate...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashwani Balasaheb Pawar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2006)ACC679

A.S. Oka, J.1. On the last date the appeal was heard finally. The appeal is by the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the original claimants in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1988). According to the case of the original claimants the deceased Balasaheb Pawar was travelling by his moped on 11th February, 1998. After attending the duty at Jaisinghpur, he was returning to his residence at Alhilya Nagar, Kupwad. According to the case of the claimants, the deceased was travelling slowly by left side of the road, When he came near Circuit House Cross-road, Ambassador vehicle which is insured with the appellant and which is owned by the original opponent No. 1 came from the wrong side and gave dash to the moped on which the deceased was travelling. On the same day, deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,71,000 ...

Fitrite Packers Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides at length. Both the appeals are on the same issue.However, in respect of the impugned order-in-appeal No. E/810/05. the matter was once remanded to the lower appellate authority and on his confirming the demand the appellants have filed this appeal. In respect of Appeal No. E/809/05, the lower appellate authority has also confirmed the demand against the appellants giving rise to the said appeal.2. Arguing both the appeals, Shri M.H. Patil, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants raises the following issues: (i) Whether the impugned goods mainly GIP wrappers in rolls printed by the appellants out of GI base paper in rolls on which duty has been paid under sub-heading 4805.90 is chargeable to duty under sub-heading 4811.90. It is the contention of the appellants that merely printing such paper in the rolls with the motive/logo of M/s Parle Biscuits, which is subsequently waxed and cut into wrappers of required size, does not amount to manufacture and the same ...

Akash Fashion Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is a job worker and is receiving the man made fabrics from the principal manufacturer under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 2-4-86 and was returning the same after processing to the principal manufacturer. Benefit of the said Notification has been denied and duty of Rs. 3,03,023/- stands confirmed against the appellants along with the imposition of personal penalty of identical amount by the authorities below on the ground that man made fabrics were excluded from the benefit of the said Notification inasmuch as they were not in the list of specified final products eligible for job work exemption.2. The appellant's contention is that if the benefit of the said Notification was not applicable, they would get the benefit in terms of the provisions of Rule 57AC, which were identical to erstwhile Rule 57F(4) to Central Excise Rules, 1944. They had followed the procedure for obtaining the goods for processing the fabrics on job work basis and had returned the same on th...

Shri J.B. Kharwar, Ram Fabrics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC132

1. These are two appeals against two orders of Commissioner. Since the orders in both the appeals arise out of the same set of facts, the same are being decided through a common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants firm runs process house wherein man made fabrics are produced. The process like bleaching, dyeing, printing and finishing are undertaken by the appellants on grey man made fabrics supplied by various traders.3. On the basis of intelligence gathered some preventive officers of the department visited appellants' premises and seized a tempo loaded with 97 pieces of processed man made fabrics measuring 8017.50 meters.This fabric was seized as their description and quantity did not tally with the accompaning gate passes and there were certain discrepancies in the duplicate and triplicate copy of the gate passes. The officers also seized 6072 linear meters of man made furies lying in the premises in semi-finished condition On the ground that it was excess ...

Jagdamba Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the Order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 29,38,759/- (Rs. Twenty Nine Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Nine Only) against M/s. Jagadamba Polymers Ltd. on the ground that they have set up/floated dummy units such as Mangal Plastics, Daksha Packaging, Shree Ayyappa Packaging etc. in Order to avail of inadmissible concessional rate of duty in terms of Notifications as applicable to SSI unit and has imposed penalty of Rs. 30 Lakhs on M/s.Jagadamba Polymers Ltd. as well as penalties of various amounts under the provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on Director of M/s. Jagadamba Polymers Ltd. and the so called dummy units.2. We have heard both sides. We find that M/s. Jagadamba Polymers Ltd. was engaged in the manufacture of HDPE Tapes, fabrics and sacks from job workers who were availing the benefit of SSI Notification No.175/86-CE as amended. The department ha...

P.M. Traders and ors. Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2006)BC65

1. Mr. Nagori for the appellants and Mr. Gopalkrishna Swami for the respondent No. 1 are present.2. All these three miscellaneous appeals are filed by the different defendants in the same original application against the order passed by the D.R.T.-II, Mumbai on 25th May, 2005 allowing the application made on behalf of the respondent No. 1 Bank/original applicant Bank to lead secondary evidence of the security documents through typed copies filed along with the original application.3. The respondent Bank had filed an application dated 9th February, 2005 before the D.R.T. to allow them to lead secondary evidence in respect of documents, a list of which was given in Exhibit 'C' annexed to the said application. Those documents were 19 in number and all of them were dated 19th September, 1984. Copies of those documents had been annexed as Exhibits 'A' to 'S' to the original application, which consisted of documents like demand promissory note, deed of hypothecation, declarations, promissor...

The Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai a Statutory Corporation Cons ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR338; 2006(3)BomCR557

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and its functionaries have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and order dated October 14, 2004, passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 and quashed and set aside the orders dated 24th March, 2004 (Exhibits `O1', `O2' and `P') and the demands of payment pursuant to the bills (Exhibits `R', `S1' to `S8') so far as the present appellants sought to reassess the rateable value with effect from 1st April, 2000. 2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the first appellant- the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 'the Corporation' and the present respondent No.1- Dalamal Tower Premises Co-operative Society Limited 'the petitioner'. 3. The petitioner claims to hold the property being plot of land with building `Dalamal Tower', situate at Plot No. 211, Backbay Reclamation, Municipal A Ward No. 1315 (127), Nariman Point, Mum...

Amirshah S/O Kadirshah and ors. Vs. Salimabi W/O Amirsha

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom302; 2006(4)ALLMR269; 2006(5)BomCR470; 2006(4)MhLj856

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Kaptan, learned Counsel for the applicants. None appears for the non-applicant, though served.2. The civil revision application is directed against the order dated 1-12-1999 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Daryapur whereby application filed by the applicants Under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction came to be dismissed.3. Shri Kaptan, learned Counsel for the applicants, submitted that applicant No. 1 was married to non-applicant. However, marriage was dissolved by divorce on 17-8-1998. The non-applicant filed Regular Civil Suit No. 36/1998 for return of articles of Dahej. The applicants filed an application Under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of provisions of Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The trial Court dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 1-12-1...

Indian Seamless Steel and Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC198

1. Heard both sides for waiver of pre deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and stay of recovery.2. The issue involved is ineligible availment of Modvat credit during the period 1995-96 and other charges under the Modvat Rules, as well as the demand of duty. The Commissioner confirmed the Show Cause Notice issued on 27.2.1999 confirming the following demands: (i) Deny and recover an amount of Rs. 1,43,84,828.55 being the Modvat credit taken by the appellants on scrap during the period from 1995-96 on the ground that the said credit was taken on the quantity shown in RG23A Part I in excess of the quantity as receipt of scrap in Form 3CD filed for the financial year 1995-96 (assessment year 1996-97) before the Income tax authorities and the daily statement of receipt for the year 1995-96; (ii) Deny and recover Modvat credit of Rs. 15,85,798.22 taken on the inputs which were found to be short received when compared to quantity mentioned in the duty paying ...