Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

Shree Balaji Processing and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case a duty demand of Rs. 1,22,513/- together with interest, has been confirmed on fabrics processed by Shree Balaji Processing & Printing Mills seized fabrics have been confiscated with option of redemption, deemed credit of Rs. 31,858/- has been directed to be recovered and penalty of an amount equal to duty has been imposed.Personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on the 2nd appellant who is the Proprietor of the processing mills.3. The duty demand has been confirmed on the ground that grey fabrics processed by the mills were under-valued. The first contention of the appellants that they are not the manufacturers for the reason that someone-else viz. M/s. Fidahusain Haji Bandehasan Textile Processors was the owner of the processing unit, and the appellants were only endorsed on the Central Excise Registration Certificate issued to the unit Owner, is not tenable in the light of the definition of the expression 'manufacturer' in Section 2(f) of the Central Exc...

Southern Nagpur Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Purushottam S/O ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR279; 2006(6)MhLj268

S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. This appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated July, 4, 1994 in writ petition No. 2798 of 1993 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant society to challenge the order dated 30/12/1992 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Nagpur in Appeal No. 64 of 1990 was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief for the decision of this appeal can be stated thus:A) Respondent No. 1 filed the dispute in the Cooperative Court, Nagpur bearing Dispute No. 110/1982-83 under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for declaration that he is entitled to claim the allotment of the plot, from the appellant-society along with possession, in pursuance to the resolution of 1966. He had also claimed that the Co-operative Court should declare that the allotment of plot (offer) as per letter dated 08/6/1981 is illegal and not binding on the disputan...

Mrs. Sayeeda Shakur Khan and ors. Vs. Sajid Phaniband and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR7; II(2006)DMC701

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Notice of Motion No. 885 of 2005 has been taken out by the Plaintiffs for a direction to Defendant No. 1 to furnish a list of the present and the past tenants in the suit property and to render true and correct accounts of his dealings in respect of the property from 1st April 2002. A prayer for appointment a Receiver has also been made and an injunction is claimed against Defendant No. 1 from disposing off or parting with or alienating, encroaching or creating third party rights in respect of the suit property and from transferring the tenancies in the suit property. 2. Notice of Motion No. 2283 of 2005 has been taken out by the Plaintiffs for appointing Court Receiver in respect of the suit property. In the alternative, it is prayed that Defendant No. 1 be directed to deposit the excess/surplus rent collected by him in respect of the suit property after deducting the taxes payable to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation with effect from 1st April 2002. 3. By way of a...

infomedia India Ltd. Vs. Suhas Shripad Gadre and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR580; 2007(1)BomCR188; [2007(113)FLR669]; (2007)2LLJ467Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The First Respondent was engaged as a machine operator by the Petitioner at its establishment at Prabhadevi, Mumbai. The Petitioner was, at the material time, engaged in the business of printing. On 22nd June 1992, the First Respondent applied for leave from 1st July 1992 to 29th August 1992 on the ground that he was going on a tour to the southern part of India. The application for leave was sanctioned by the management and the First Respondent accordingly proceeded on leave. Upon the expiry of leave, the First Respondent did not report for duty. The evidence that has emerged from the record shows that it is now an undisputed position that the First Respondent never proceeded on any tour within the territory of India but instead, took up employment in South Africa with a Company by the name of Golden Era which carried on the business of printing. The First Respondent was drawing wages at the material time, in the amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month with the Petition...

ishwar Bhuvan Refreshments Annexe Whose Partners Are Ishwar P. Barot a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR11

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Plaintiff claims to be a registered partnership firm running a restaurant under the name and style RAJDHANI. The Plaintiff contends that its restaurant RAJDHANI has acquired a good reputation over the last forty years. The restaurant RAJDHANI serves Gujarati meals and/or Gujarati food in Mumbai as well as other places. The Plaintiff has also started serving Rajasthani meals/food. The Plaintiff provides catering services to office goers in the city as well as on social occasions and functions. The Plaintiff has set up another restaurant in Nasik offering the same services as their restaurant at Mulji Jetha Market in the city. 2. The Plaintiff contends that it is the proprietor of the name and mark RAJDHANI in relation to the restaurant business of food and beverages catering service in Mumbai. An application has been made for registration of the trade mark RAJDHANI (stylized) in class 42. The Plaintiff claims that it has generated an annual revenue of Rs. 62,83,...

Gaffarbeg Musakbeg Musalman and ors. Vs. Gulabkhan Mehboobkhan Pathan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR725; 2006(6)MhLj232

ORDERS.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. C.R. Deshpande for the petitioners.2. Few facts, necessary for the consideration of this civil revision application, may be summarised, as follows:(a) One Mr. Gulabkhan had filed Regular Civil Suit ('RCS') No. 215 of 1979 against the petitioners/defendants for possession of the suit property, (the parties, hereinafter, are referred to their status in Regular Darkhast No. 12 of 1994.). The suit property is house bearing CTS No. 2377 situated at Nandurbar, district Nandurbar, admeasuring 81.3 Sq.Mtrs. During the pendency of RCS 215 of 1979, undisputedly, Gulabkhan, the sole plaintiff died. An application was filed for substitution of legal heirs of original plaintiff Gulabkhan. Undisputedly, eight legal heirs were substituted as legal heirs of deceased Gulabkhan. Out of these eight legal heirs, plaintiff No. 5 Saidabi also died on 17th July, 1993. It is also admitted fact that RCS 215 of 1979 was decreed by the trial Court by the judgmen...

Haribhau S/O Vithal Pharate and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj540

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final hearing with consent.2. The applicants, who are original accused Nos. 1 and 2 in R.T.C. No. 119/-1996, under Sections 109 and 494 of Indian Penal Code pending before J.M.F.C. Shrigonda, have filed this application invoking Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash and set aside the order passed by learned J.M.F.C. on the application of the complainant, who is respondent No. 2 before this Court, for calling certain witnesses under Section 311, Criminal Procedure Code.3. According to the applicants, the case was pending before J.M.F.C. since 1996 against as many as 15 accused persons. It is contended that the complainant/respondent No. 2 had completed and closed her evidence and filed Purshis to that effect on 18-12-2003. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for arguments. However, suddenly on 26-8-2004 respondent No. 2 filed application Exh. 157 seeking permission to examine 9 more witnesses and direct...

Cable Corpn. of India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR124; 2006(5)BomCR513

ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. An order was passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directing the First Petitioner to deposit interest in the amount of Rs. 31,01,050/- under Section 7-Q and damages in the amount of Rs. 94,17,882/- under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. A similar order was passed in the companion petition. An order imposing damages under Section 14-B is subject to an appeal under Section 7-I to the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act. This Court was moved in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution since the Appellate Tribunal was not functioning and the vacancy which had occurred in the office of the Presiding Officer had not been filled up by the Union of India. In the meantime, a notice had been received by the First Petitioner on 4th July, 2003 calling upon the company to deposit the amounts demanded in order to avoid further action. This Petition was accordingly entertained sinc...

Smt. Krishnalata W/O Sureshchandra Sharma (Bahad) and Three ors. Vs. S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR821; 2006(5)BomCR100; 2006(6)MhLj345

V.G. Palshikar, Acting C.J.1. Heard Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for the petitioners. The respondent was served with notice before admission, but did not appear. Therefore, fresh notice stating that the petition would be disposed of at the stage of admission was issued, yet none appears for respondent, consequently the respondent is proceeded exparte because of service of notice twice. 2. By the petition the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kamptee, in Regular Darkhast No. 8/2000 on th January, 2002, dismissing the Regular Darkhast on the ground that the decree dated 14.7.1991 passed in R.C.S. No. 638/94 by the 2nd Additional Small Causes Court, Nagpur, was without jurisdiction. This order is impugned in this petition. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Civil Judge committed error of law and error of jurisdiction in rejecting the Darkhast. The premises that (1) on creation of...

John Vergese Vs. Gracy Vergese

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR190

Daga V.C., J.1. Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Pangam appearing for the original petitioner/respondent herein waives service. Heard finally by consent of terms.FACTS2. The review petitioner is seeking review of the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 5.11.2004 directing the applicant No. 1 to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- with the Registry of this Court to meet the educational expenses of his two children, who are presently under the care of the respondent/original petitioner. It appears that the respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 216/1999/D for declaration and injunction. In the said suit, she filed two miscellaneous applications, details of which are as under:(i) Civil Misc. Application No. 501/1999 /D seeking temporary injunction restraining the applicant from dissipating the assets of the company;(ii) Civil Misc. Application No. 650/2000/D for a direction to the applicant to provide maintenance for he' 'self and two children.3. The trial COl1rt...