Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments

Seema Vishal Thadhani Vs. Municipal Commissioner and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR686; 2007(3)BomCR933

Karnik D.G., J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether a licence under Section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Act 1888 (for short 'the MMC Act') is required to be obtained for the purpose of sale of liquor which is served in sealed bottles in a retail liquor shop, not for consumption on the retailer's premises.2. Petitioner holds a licence in form FL II issued to her under Section 34 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Under the terms of the licence, the licencee is allowed to sell foreign liquor in sealed bottles in Shop No. 15, Atur Park, Shiv-Parvati Co-operative Housing Society, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. Under Rule 38 of the Bombay Prohibition Rules, the liquor is to be sold only in corked bottles, sealed or capsuled. Rule 35 prescribes that the person in charge of the licenced premises shall not permit the liquor to be consumed on the licensed premises. In pursuance of the said licence, petitioner sells foreign l...

Getwell Board and Paper (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. FakruddIn S. Lokhandwala and a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR392]

D.G. Karnik, J 1. Heard Counsel.2. By this petition the petitioner challenges the judgment and order, dated 2 March, 2005, passed by respondent No. 2, the Labour Court, Mumbai, awarding the respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 14,10,000 by allowing his application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act).3. According to respondent No. 1 (for short the respondent), his services were terminated by the petitioner in May, 1989. The petitioner disputed this and contended that the services of the respondent were not terminated but he abandoned the service in May, 1999. The respondent approached the Labour Commissioner for conciliation. In the conciliation proceedings he did not press the claim for reinstatement in service but claimed Rs. 2 lakhs as arrears of commission allegedly payable to him. The Conciliation Officer recorded that the respondent had refused to join the duties but had claimed Rs.2 lakhs as commission and therefore the matter could not be settled. T...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Speciality Valves

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC320

1. The revenue is in appeal, aggrieved by an order dated 29.12.1998 passed y the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Custom House, Mumbai wherein the Order-in-Original dated 19.10.1996 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai is set aside.2. M/s. Speciality Valves, Prop. Lion Holding (P) Ltd., F-2, Kailash Plaza, Sant Nagar, New Delhi, herein referred to as the Importer filed Bill of Entry No. 006287 dated 15.04.96 for clearance of the following items described by them as parts of M08 Spray Pumps classified the same under Chapter Tariff Heading No. 8424.90: The Assistant Commissioner, Customs, held that the goods are to be classified under CTH 9616.10 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, whereas on filing the appeal by the importer, the Commissioner of Customs (A) held that the goods are classifiable under CTH 8424.90 as parts of Dispenser. The impugned order is reviewed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai and found the same as neither legal nor proper and authorized, the...

Peacock Industries Ltd., Vs. Budhrani Finance Ltd. and State of Mahara ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2006)BC302; 2006(5)MhLj162

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The questions raised in this group of writ petitions are common, the fact situation against which they are raised is similar and though the parties are different they all arise from somewhat similar orders and hence this group of petitions is being disposed of by common judgment.2. The questions that fall for my consideration are as under;(A) Whether sub-section (2) of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short, 'the Act') confers an unfettered right on the complainant and the accused to apply to the Court seeking direction to give oral examination-in-chief, of a person giving evidence on affidavit, even in respect of the facts stated therein and that if such a right is exercised, whether the Court is obliged to examine such a person in spite of the mandate of Section 145(1) of the Act?(B) Whether the provisions of Section 145 of the Act, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002,(for short 'the a...

Jagannath Singh Vs. Dr. Shri Ajay Upadhyay and the State of Maharashtr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ4274

D.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned-APP for the State.2. The Respondent No. 1 has filed a Criminal Complaint before the JMFC, Bhiwandi, against the accused for breach of trust and other offences under Sections 403, 504, 406, 409, 506 II r/w. 511 and 120-B of the I.P.C. According to the Petitioner Accused he has no role to play in the so-called offence. He has no concern with the business of his son - the accused No. 2, who is not respondent in the petition, and, therefore, FIR which is registered against him should be quashed.3. The petitioner has stated in the petition that after the complaint was filed by the respondent No. 1, Magistrate ordered investigation under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Code') and the police have registered M.C.R. No. 2/2005 against the petitioner and his son. The son of the petitioner was arrested and now the police want to arrest the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contended that til...

Kundlik Banduji Bhosale and ors. Vs. Ramnath Limbaji Bhosale and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)MhLj702

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties. Respective Counsel waive notice for Rule.2. The present petition is filed by original accused for quashing the proceeding initiated against them being Regular Criminal Case No. 337/2002 in respect of offences punishable under Section 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The relevant facts for purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioners were prosecuted by the respondent No. 2 for offences punishable under Sections 326, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the conclusion of the trial, learned 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna by his order dated 1-10-2003 convicted the petitioners of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer R. I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default to suffer S.I. for one month. The petitioners were, however, acquitted of the offenc...

Chhabutai Wd/O Prabhakar Ingole and ors. Vs. Bakulabai W/O Jagannath I ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)MhLj732

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this appeal the appellants/original plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and decree dated 16-6-1993, delivered by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Yavatmal in Regular Civil Appeal No. 75/1991, and also the judgment and decree dated 30-3-1991 delivered by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yavatmal in Regular Civil Suit No. 35/1985. The Courts below have concurrently held that the suit for ejectment and possession of present respondents filed by the appellant was barred in view of the provisions of Order 22, Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code.2. The admitted position is that the appellants/plaintiffs are the landlords and defendants are tenants. The predecessor in title of the present appellants obtained permission from Rent Controller, and thereafter served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, dated 11-2-1974 terminating the tenancy of respondents. He thereafter filed Regular Civil Suit No. 190/1974 on 20-9-1974 for ejectment...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7VST583(Bom)

1. Heard counsel for rival parties. The question sought to be raised in this application is :Whether the sale of 87 vehicles by the respondent-dealer to the Government of India under five invoices was effected in the course of export covered by Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 2 The learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue contends that the said transaction cannot be said to be within the sweep of the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Reliance is placed on the division Bench judgments of this court in the case of Usha Martin Black Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1996] 101 STC 389 and Narang Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [2004] 135 STC 289 in support of the submission made.3 Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of the apex court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2006] 145 STC 176 and pressed into service the test laid down by t...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Vishal Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The revenue is in appeal. The common issue involves in all these appeals is that the availment of Modvat credit by the purchaser of the goods, on payment of duty paid/deposit by the manufacturer of the same.3. It is admitted that the respondents are receiving bare copper wire on payment of central excise duty on regular and proper invoices and have taken Cenvat credit to the extent mentioned in invoices as per the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. The adjudicating authority had disallowed the credit on the ground that the process of drawing wire from wire rods does not amount to manufacture and therefore, any amount paid on clearances of copper wire drawn from the wire rods as central excise duty does not represent the central excise duty and Cenvat credit of duty paid on copper wire, is inadmissible.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the finished goods cleared by the respondents are insulated PVC wires. He has observed that "no dispute that the process of manufacture of ins...

Mangesh G. Salodkar Vs. Monsanto Chemicals of India Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR883

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The activities of Monsanto:Monsanto Chemicals of India Ltd. ('Monsanto') is engaged in the formulation of herbicides. Those formulations are sold under the brand names of Machete, Lasso, Roundup and Avadex. The active ingredients in these herbicides are Butachlor, Alachlor, Glyphosate and Triallate. The concentrated active ingredient is manufactured in the U.S. and is imported into India. Monsanto has a factory at Silvassa in which the process of formulation is carried out - a process by which an active ingredient concentrate is diluted to a level or form at which it can be used by the consumer. Monsanto has been in the market in India since 1973 or thereabout. The Central Insecticides Board, a regulatory body constituted under the Insecticides Act, 1968, has accorded statutory approval. Between 1970 and 1999, Monsanto had a factory at Lonavala. The Plant at Lonavala was closed in 1999. A new plant was established at Silvassa in the Union Territory of Dadra Nagar...