Mumbai Court June 2007 Judgments

Sunil Sukhdeo Ingle Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3867

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. The accused/appellant was convicted under Sections 306, 498-A of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years for offence under Section 498-A and 5 years for offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. A few facts may be narrated thus:Deceased Mayawati was married to the accused just 3 months prior to the incident. She was married to the accused in a Mass Marriage. It is alleged that Mayawati was treated nicely for a period of 1 1/2 months by the accused/appellant. Thereafter he started making demand of gold ring, chain and cash. He used to ill-treat Mayawati for not fulfilling his demand. It is alleged that friends of the accused used to come to his house to play cards and the accused desired that Mayawati should have sexual relations with his friends. This was disliked by Mayawati. She complained all this to her parents. Her parents then persuaded the accused not to insists on Mayawati to...

Suresh B. Ghadge Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(122)ECC76

1. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a specific tip off, officers of Customs searched Air India Aircraft bound for Dubai in the presence of security staff of Air India and two panch witnesses and found eight packets containing foreign currency totally amounting to Rs. 69,89,644/- from the back rest seat No. 35E, 35F and 47F.Thereafter Customs officers kept a discreet surveillance on the aircraft and as soon as all the passengers boarded the aircraft, Customs officers re-entered the aircraft with the panchas and found one male passenger by name Shri Suresh Bhaguram Ghadge and one lady passenger, Smt. Sunita Suresh Ghadge wife of Shri Suresh Bhaguram Ghadge occupying seats No. 35E and 35F whereas seat No. 47F was found vacant. Both Shri Suresh Bhaguram Ghadge and his wife were questioned about the recovery of foreign currency from the back rest seat occupied by them but they denied any knowledge of the same and its concealment.In subsequent interrogation, in the prese...

Seva Sadan Education Society Vs. Shri Pyarelal Ramdeo

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR296; 2007(5)BomCR383

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This second appeal arises from the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Ulhasnagar on 7th March 1986 in Regular Civil Suit No.188 of 1977 and duly confirmed by the lower Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 31st March 1988 by dismissing Civil Appeal No.181 of 1986. 2. The substantial questions of law framed in this Second Appeal while admitting it are as under:(a) Whether the Courts below were right in assuming the jurisdiction of the Court under the provisions of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and grant the relief of the nature granted to the Respondent -plaintiff when the Civil Court could not have granted such a relief and entertained the Suit in question?(b) Whether the Courts below were right in granting the relief of reinstatement to the Respondent - Plaintiff when the relationship between the parties is governed by giving contractual obligations and when remedy of reinstatement is not permissible save and except wher...

Ku. Sheetal D/O. Manikrao Dupare Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR332; 2007(4)MhLj330

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.2. Petitioner born at village Shivpuri in Chhindwara district of Madhya Pradesh to parents who belong to Mahar caste, was appointed in Western Coalfields Ltd., which has its headquarter at Nagpur. She obtained caste certificate which had to be got verified by respondent No.3 Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee. Accordingly her claim, with relevant documents, was referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Committee, by its impugned communications dated 24.11.2004 and 03.12.2004, refused to entertain petitioner's caste claim and informed her that since the petitioner was a migrant she was not entitled to have her caste claim scrutinized. Since her subsequent representations did not yield any results the petitioner has ultimately approached this Court by filing present petition on 16.01.2006.3. Notice was issued to the respondents. On behalf of respondent No.3-Caste Scrutiny Committee an affida...

Bimalendu Kaminikanto Sengupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR175; 2007(5)MhLj612

Patil Naresh H., J.1. The petitioner who was 76 years when he filed the petition, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is of 85 years today. The petitioner is a freedom fighter who challenges the validity and legality of letter dt. 24-3-1998 whereby respondent No. 2. refused to accept the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension. By an order dt 15-11-1999, this Court directed respondent No. 3 the Government of West Bengal to co-operate and provide necessary information to the officer deputed by respondent No. 2. It was further directed that the deputed officer shall also visit the petitioner for collecting necessary information required for deciding the claim of the freedom fighter's pension.2. Admittedly, after adopting appropriate procedure, the Under Secretary to the Government of India in a communication dt. 26-5-2004 addressed to the Pay and Accounts Office (Pension and Miscellaneous), Ministry of Affairs, New Delhi informed that the Hon'ble the President has a...

Arif Y. Divasli and ors. Vs. Ccex and Priti Poly Coated

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC187

1. These appeals were heard earlier on 10.3.2006 and they have been re-heard today. As regards appeal No. E/1989/02 filed by Shri Arif Y.Divasli, appeal No. E/1990/02 filed by M/s Ohasban Polyplast Ltd., appeal No. E.2362/02 filed by Shree Dutt Enterprises and appeal No.E/2364/02 filed by Shri Tulsidas Thakkar, we find that the appellants were not present on the earlier date of hearing and they are also not present today despite notice. In fact, some of notices issued to them have come back returned. There are also no adjournment requests. It appears that these appellants are not interested in pursuing their appeals. As such, these appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.2. Heard both sides in respect of appeal No. E/2328/02 filed by M/s Priti Poly Coated and appeal No. E/1380/03 filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Valsad. Both sides agree that the impugned goods in question are laminated fabrics produced by laminating woven fabrics made of HDPE and that the same are classi...

Niki Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)7STR662

1. The short matter involved in this appeal is regarding reduction in penalty which was enhanced by Commissioner (Appeals) from Rs. 1,000/ to Rs. 1,02,581/- on the ground that there has been delay in payment of Service Tax repeatedly and the original authority has not given any justification for reducing the penalty under provision of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The learned advocate for the appellants submits that the provision of Section 76 were amended in 10^th September 2004 when the words Rs. 100/- for every day from which the such failure continue were introduced which were earlier not there and therefore a penalty of Rs. 100/- per day could not have been imposed for the period prior to September 2004 and the very ground of appeal that Section 76 prescribes a minimum penalty of Rs. 100/- per day was erroneous and not sustainable. He also pleads leniency on the ground that the tax has been paid alongwith interest and as there was some doubts regarding leviability of tax...

Proportions Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) enhancing the penalty imposed under Section 76 from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 29,052/-on the ground that the penalty imposed earlier was less than the minimum prescribed under Section 76. The Commissioner (Appeals) also found no justification in the order of the Deputy Commissioner for reducing the penalty under the provision of Section 80.3. I find that in this case the appellants have taken registration in the year 2001 and were liable to pay tax from July 1998. Even after taking the registration default continued for every quarter ranging from one to three months. The appellants have pleaded leniency on the ground that the service tax was paid along with interest at the time of registration and have also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Sabadra v. Commissioner 2007 (7) STJ 13 (CESTAT-Mum) and C.C.E., Bhopal v. Bharat Security Services & Worker's Cont. where penalty was held not liable to be i...

Vivek Mukund Modhe Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This matter is listed for admission today as the amount of penalty imposed on the appellant is Rs. 17,127/-.2. Second proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not applicable to the Service Tax matter, hence, the appeal filed by the appellants is admitted. Registry is directed to list the appeal in its due course....

Ramesh Patkar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The short matter involved in this appeal is regarding reduction in penalty which was enhanced by Commissioner (Appeals) from Rs. 1,000/ to Rs. 76,677/- on the ground that there has been delay in payment of Service Tax repeatedly and the original authority has not given any justification for reducing the penalty under provision of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The learned advocate for the appellants submits that the provision of Section 76 were amended in 10^th September 2004 when the words Rs. 100/- for every any from which the such failure continue were introduced which were earlier not there and therefore a penalty of Rs. 100/- per day could not have been imposed for the period prior to September 2004 and the very ground of appeal that Section 70 prescribes a minimum penalty of Rs. 100/- per day was erroneous and not sustainable. He also pleads leniency on the ground that the tax has been paid alongwith interest and as there was some doubts regarding leviability of tax o...