Mumbai Court December 2007 Judgments

Namdeo Mali Vs. Jayram Barde and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR819; 2008(2)BomCR178; 2008(2)MhLj833

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Being aggrieved and affected by the impugned order dated 27th April, 1993 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Nashik (for short, 'the trial Court'), the appellant's application for grant of probate in pursuance to the later registered Will executed by the deceased Zipru Punja Bhil of village Bhingare, Tq. Yeola, District Nashik, dated 1-9-1990 rejected and by the same order the counter-claim of the respondents (original opponents) have been allowed and that resulted into the grant of probate based upon the registered Will of the deceased dated 5-6-1979 (the 1979 Will) and the Court has accordingly issued probate in favour of original opponent Nos. 1 to 3 (respondents 1 to 3). Therefore the present appeal.2. On 5-6-1979, the deceased Zipru Punja Bhil executed a Will dated 5-6-1979 in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and bequeathed property bearing Gat No. 7 admeasuring 2H 5 R situate at Village Bhingare, Taluka - Yeola, District-Nashik.3. On 1-9-1990, it is...

Commissioner of Custom (import) Vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(126)ECC259

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.06(CRC)/2007 dated 9.3.2007.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides. It is the submission of the learned SDR that the refund claim, which has been sanctioned to the respondent, was passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) without considering the fact that the respondent has not challenged the assessment of the Bill of Entry. It is his submission that the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous as the facts of the case indicate that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CC (Prev) 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the issue may not be covered by the decision of the Apex Court as the respondent had paid the entire amount of duty on the goods, which were short landed and the entire goods did not land in India and, therefore, duty demand: does not arise.4. It is ...

Essel Propack Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC117

1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise as confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 19,81,91,800/- together with interest, on three varieties of multilayer plastic laminated web (printed/plain), viz. EPL-1725, EPL-1730 and EPL-1403 manufactured in the Vasind unit of the appellants and removed to their other units for use in the manufacture of excisable final products during the period from October 1997 to June 2000, on the basis of determination of assessable value as per the provisions of Rule 6(i)(a) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, by adopting the price of Rs. 233.81 per kg. which was the price at which the appellants sold one web variety, i.e. EPL-1725 (unprinted) to M/s. Courtaulds Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd., Goa, during the period 18.5.1996 to 30.6.1996.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a declaration on 1.7.1997 for different varieties of webs to be cleared to their other units at Wada and Murbad under the provisions of erst...

Bhavesh Estates (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), for the assessment year 2003-04.2. The first issue is against the confirmation of the assessed income at Pis. 4,99,260 as against the nil income declared in the return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 has been opposed.2.1 The assessee company is in the business of construction. During the year, the assessee company had entered into an understanding with M/s Arora Builders (alias M/s Sukhmani Construction) for the development of immovable property situated at Andheri, Mumbai, vide development agreement dated 28-11-2003. The said agreement was registered with the office of the sub-Registrar, Mumbai. As per development agreement there are two phases of constructionone for rehabilitation and second for sale. The entire expenses for Phase-I, i.e. rehabilitation, were borne by the company on behalf of M/s Sukhmani Construction and for Phase-II, i.e. sale, the entire expenses were borne by...

Larsen and Toubro Limited, an existing public limited company Incorpor ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR633; [2008]82SCL172(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The dispute in the suit and in the Notice of Motion relates to a shareholding of 19,25,992 shares of the Defendants in the First Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs seek specific performance of an agreement by which the Defendants agreed, according to the Plaintiffs, to sell their shareholding of 9,62,996 shares in the First Plaintiff which, together with the accretion of bonus shares totals up to 19,25,992 shares. The Plaintiffs claim that there was an agreement by which these shares were to be sold to the Second Plaintiff at and for a consideration of Rs. 240/- per share. There is a claim for damages in the amount of Rs. 461.41 crores in the event that the Court comes to the conclusion that specific performance cannot be granted. The interlocutory relief which is sought in the Motion is for the appointment of a Receiver and for an injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating the shares and exercising any rights in respect of the shares including voting rights or...

Jairam S/O Krishnas Mali (Sonune) Vs. Digambar Gopinath Sutat (Dead) T ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR802; 2008(2)BomCR644; 2008(2)MhLj523

R.V. More, J.1. The present Letters Patent Appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 18-6-1997, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1834/1990, whereby the Writ Petition came to be allowed; quashing and setting aside the order of Tahsildar, Buldhana dated 16-9-1986 as confirmed by Sub Divisional Officer, Buldhana and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, and the matter was remanded back to the Tahsildar, Buldhana to decide the same afresh. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present Letters Patent Appeal are as under.2. The dispute relates to the land bearing Survey No. 12/1 admeasuring about 5 Acres 37 G at village Chikhli, Mouza: Bhadola, Tq. Chikhali, dist. Buldhana (hereinafter referred to as 'said land' for the sake of brevity). The appellant started cultivating the said land as its tenant with effect from 7-5-1967. The respondent, the owner of the land, claimed that the appellant cultivated the said land on batai terms, o...

Attaur Raheman Fateh Mohmmad Vs. Hari Peeraji Burud Died Through Lrs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj633

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal was admitted by this Court on following three grounds, involving substantial questions of law:(A) If the issue regarding partition is not framed whether the Extra Assistant Judge, Parbhani can give a finding that the Defendant has not proved the partition?(B) The second substantial question of law is that the Plaintiff has to prove his case and if he has not led proper evidence he must fail.(C) The third substantial questions of law is that if the Defendant proves his agreement and ownership of Peeraji Laxman whether he can take benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act?2. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned Advocate for the appellant, Shri Agrawal, learned Advocate for respondent 1-b and Smt. Jamdade, learned Advocate for respondent 1-c.3. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 107 of 1996, which was for declaration of ownership with recovery of possession of the suit house. The suit, after recording evidence, was dismis...

Mtnl Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)12STJ417CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. The stay application has been filed by the applicants against the Order-in-Original No 11/STC/S.J. Singh/07 dated 04.01.07 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai, who vide the impugned order, ordered the applicants to pay Rs 55,98,941/- alongwith interest @ 13%.Prima facie, the action of the applicants in the instant case, to suo motto adjust the excess Service Tax recovered from the subscribers in subsequent half yearly return appears to be incorrect in as much as Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 permits such adjustment only if the assessee has refunded the value of the taxable service and the Service Tax thereon to the person from whom it was received. In the instant case, the refund of the excess Service Tax alone by the applicants to the subscribers in the subsequent billings is not sufficient. This finds support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of A.C. Nielsen Org Marg (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi 2006 (3) S.T.R. 503 (Tri.-D...

Manikgarh Cement Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)9STR554

1. Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,07,943/- availed by the appellants who are manufacturers of cement, on account of repairs and maintenance of civil construction, etc., in their residential colony during the period from July, 2005 to March, 2006 has been disallowed on the ground that repairs, etc., were not input services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance thereof from the place of removal as per Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed upon the appellants herein.2. I have heard both sides on the appeal against the denial of credit and imposition of penalty.3. The definition of "input service" as set out in Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 means: (i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service, or (ii)used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products and clearance of the final products...

Mr. Anthony D'Sa son of Mr. Valentino Antonio D'Sa Vs. Mrs. Daria Lino ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR52; 2008(2)BomCR50; (2008)110BOMLR11; 2008(3)MhLj651

N.A. Britto, J.1. Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties.2. Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 01/02/2007 of the learned ADJ (Additional District Judge) bringing on record defendants No. 3 to 13 as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.3. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of this revision and for that the parties hereto are referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of R.C.S. No. 227/82.4. The plaintiff was the mother/mother-in-law of defendants No. 3 to 13. The plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff along with defendants No. 3 to 13 be declared to be the owners of the suit property and that they were not bound by the sale deeds dated 10/11/1983 and 23/02/1987. The plaintiff had also sought mandatory injunction for the demolition of a structure constructed by defendant No. 1. The defendants No. 3 to 11 were ordered to proceed ex-parte on 15/01/19992 and defendants No. 12 and 13 wer...