Mumbai Court June 2006 Judgments

Satyanarayan Vithal Ambat Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3662

J.N. Patel, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 42 of 1998 the appellants-accused in the two appeals were tried along with others on a charge that they have committed murder of Firoz @ Bachchu Mohd. Salim Khalil Ahmed Khan and one Akhtar. The trial Court by judgment and order dated 29th October, 1999 found the appellant -original accused No. 1 Phillips John Baptist and appellant -original accused No. 2 Satyanarayan Vithal Ambat guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120B and convicted and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. They were also found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and came to be convicted and sentenced on the said count to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for six months. They were acquitted of the other charges with the further direction that their substantive sentences would run concurrently. The Court also granted them set off for the period ...

Tukaram Hari Shevale, Vs. Smt. Laxmibai Vishnu Kulkarni (Since Decease ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR45; 2006(5)MhLj390

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The petitioners-tenants have brought in question the order passed by the Addl. Tahsildar and ALT at Karad on 27/9/1974 dismissing their application under Section 32G(4) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Tenancy Act' for short). The order passed by the Additional Tahsildar came to be confirmed in Tenancy Appeal No. 54 of 1976 dismissed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. II, Satara and the Revision Application No. 5 of 1984 was also dismissed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirming the said appellate order. 2. The factual matrix relevant to the petition is that the suit land admeasuring 9 Acres and 23 Gunthas from revised Survey No. 438 of village Yelgaon in Karad Taluka of Satara District was owned by Smt.Sitabai @ Kashibai Ramchandra Dandge and on the tiller's day i.e. on 1/4/1957 she was a widow and hence on account of that the said tiller's day was postponed. The petitioners along with Chandrakant...

Arvind Wamanrao Pendharkar (Deceased) (Through L.Rs. Sow. Sunita Arvin ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR287; 2006(5)MhLj85

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. After the matter was closed on 19th June 2006, on 20th June 2006, the learned Senior Advocate with Shri Hedaoo, Advocate appeared and made a request to grant him further hearing in the matter. He was accompanied by Shri Dhote, learned AGP, who gave his no objection. Accordingly, both the advocates were heard on 20th June 2006 and the matter was closed for judgment.2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner, deceased and retired District and Sessions Judge has claimed a relief of re-fixation of his basic pay with effect from the date on which he was promoted to the cadre of District Judge and all subsequent dates on which his juniors were so promoted with all consequential reliefs. During the pendency of petition, by Government Resolution dated 25.7.1991, he has been given part of relief from some later dates. The grievance made is that said relief should be granted from earlier dates and he should also be paid inte...

Narendra S/O Motiram Bodkhe Vs. Additional Commissioner and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR48; 2006(44)MhLj229

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 9-8-1994 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha, whereby the punishment of permanently withholding two increments was awarded, as well as order dated 16-10-1997 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment came to be dismissed, similarly the order dated 3-12-1997 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, whereby the petitioner was suspended pending inquiry.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the short point which falls for our consideration in the present writ petition is whether the awarding of punishment of withholding of two increments permanently is a major punishment and whether such punishment can be imposed by the Disciplinary Authority without holding departmental enquiry. It is contended that the issue...

Madhavsingh Tulsidas Since Deceased Through Lrs. Vs. Bhaktiben Naranda ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR604; 2006(6)MhLj353

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes reversed the findings of the trial Judge and decreed the landlord's suit for eviction on the ground of a default by the tenant in the payment of rent.2. The landlord sued for possession of two tenanted rooms situated in 'K' Block, on the Second Floor, of a building called Vanraj Bhuvan, at Bhau Daji Cross Lane, Matunga, Mumbai. The landlord issued a notice of demand claiming arrears of rent from the tenants on 27th June 1972. The arrears were calculated at the rate of Rs. 35.70 p.m. for the period from February 1970 till September 1971 and at the rate of Rs. 36.12 from the month of October 1971. According to the landlord, the notice of demand was remitted by registered post with an acknowledgment due and the postal packet was returned with the remark, 'refused'. It was averred that a notice had also been sent Under Certificate of Posting. Another notice was stated to have been pasted on the premises. In the Written...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Esdee Paints Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The revenue is in appeal. The issue involved in this appeal is that the denial of the Modvat credit to the appellants on the inputs supplied by the Registered Dealers which is not purchased from the importer / manufacturer. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents-M/s. Esdee Paints Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of paints and varnishes falling under Chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing the cenvat credit facility. The appellants have taken the cenvat credit of Rs. 87,656/- on the basis of documents issued by M/s. Bayer Polychem (I) Ltd. Thane from its godown at Thane. It was informed by the jurisdictional Range Officer of the supplier M/s. Bayer Polychem (I) Ltd., Thane mat the dealer of M/s.Bayer Polychem (I) Ltd. had wrongly passed on cenvat credit vide above referred invoices. Therefore, the above said invoices on which the appellants availed aforesaid credit have been called for verification which revealed that M/s. Bayer Polychem (I) ...

Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Electrical Transformers as per customer specification, the raw material for which were imported at concessional rate of duty under Project Import Regulation, 1986. The appellants have entered into 16 such contract in respect of various projects and imported raw material for use in such projects. However, due to urgency in some cases the raw material was cleared on full payment of duty and utilized in the project for which there was no longer requirement of the same but the very same parts were used in a different project. Thus in many cases the raw materials had been utilized in carrying out their project even before they could be imported. Since under the Project Import Regulation the goods are required to be imported for the purpose of initial set up or substantial expansion of the existing unit the parts which were not used in these projects could not have been cleared at concessional rate. The appellants were accordingly issued s...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mukat Tanks and Vessels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC47

2. The issue relates to under valuation on account of sales being not at arms length being related person. After hearing both sides on perusal of the records and the case laws relied on, we find that the show cause notice was issued for related persons and sale not being at arms length. Additional Commissioner, after adjudication found that the charge relating to related persons only deserves to be upheld and no findings were arrived at by him with regard to confirmation of charge of arms length. No appeal was taken by the Revenue against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard. The Commissioner (Appeals), has only dealt with the charge of related persons. He has found that there is no share holding or subsidiary professional relationship between the directors. The contention with regard to Common Directors resulting in related person cannot be held in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise &...

Shri NitIn Murli Raheja Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)105ITD414(Mum.)

1. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the following ground: The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of interest Under Section 234A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from July 2000 to November 2000 of Rs. 64,207/- without considering the self assessment tax of Rs. 8,30,000/- paid on 30.06.2000 by the appellant before the date of filing the return of income i.e. 23.11.2000.2. The assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income on 23.11.2000 returning his total income at Rs. 41,10,850/- comprising of salary, long term capital gains, short-term capital gains and income from other sources. He paid taxes before filing the return of income as under: (i) Tax deducted at source Rs. 44,073/- (ii) Tax paid on 30.6.2000 Rs. 8,30,000/-*(iii) Self assessment tax paid on 31.10.2000 Rs. 50,000/- (*Subject matter of dispute whether the impugned payment is in the nature of advance tax) 3. The return filed by the a...

ivp Limited a Company Incorporated the Provisions of Companies Act, 19 ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR592; 2006(5)MhLj789

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. In both these petitions the following issues arise for our considerations:- (a) Whether the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short the Act) are applicable to the product called 'Vanaspati' when the petitioner-companies claim that it is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2(1)(a) of the Act and when it is not included in the schedule to the Act and in any case it is not an edible oil? (b) Whether the State Government Notification No. APM.1384/31159/369/11-C dated 25/9/1987 in so far as it relates to the entry 'Edible oils' is ultra vires the provisions of the Act and null and void and liable to be struck down as such? (c) Whether the respondent No. 1 APMC has the powers under Section 31 of the Act to levy and recover the market fees on the product 'Vanaspati' from the petitioners who are the manufacturers/sellers of the said product? (d) Whether the APMC has powers to levy and recover sup...