Mumbai Court April 2010 Judgments

Shri R.S. Paranjape Vs. Shri Sunil S. Doshi and anr.

Court: Mumbai

ORDERD.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard Mrs Deshmukh, learned APP, for the petitioner, Mr Dhakephalkar, learned senior Counsel, for respondent No. 1 and Mr I.M. Khairdi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.2. These two criminal references under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act') are made by the learned Principal District Judge and Sessions Judge, Sangli, (for short, 'the learned Judge') vide his Judgment and order dated 16.9.2009. The references are made in Contempt Proceeding Nos. 1 and 2 of 2009, both initiated against contemnor No. 1 - Shri Sunil Sumatilal Doshi and contemnor No. 2 Shri Raosaheb Mahavir Chimanna (for short, 'contemnor No. 1' and 'contemnor No. 2'). The contempt proceedings were initiated in view of the contents of the applications - Exhibits 25 and 27 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 44 and 45 of 2009. These applications were filed by contemnor No. 2 under his signature seeking transfer of both the criminal appeals to some other Sessions Judge. T...

Devesh S/O Dattabhau Pathrikar, Dattabhau S/O Annasaheb Pathrikar and ...

Court: Mumbai

ORDER(1) The petition is partly allowed.(2) The impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, below Exh.04, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 06 of 2005, dated 24th August, 2009 so far as it relates to framing of charge against petitioners No. 2 and 3 stands vacated.(3) The petitioners No. 2 and 3 are discharged of the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.(4) The trial Court shall proceed against the petitioner No. 1. Rule made partly absolute....

Harsha NitIn Kokate Vs. the Saraswat Co­op. Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR2014

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Plaintiff married one Nitin Kokate on 3rd December 2004. Her husband expired on 5th July 2007. Nitin Kokate held certain shares in D mat Account with the Depository Participant Cell of Defendant No. 1. Her husband executed a nomination in the prescribed form following the prescribed procedure set out by the Depository Participant, Defendant No. 1 Bank in favour of the Defendant No. 3, his nephew on 11th July 2006. The Plaintiff claims an interest in the said shares as his heir and legal representative. She claims to have them sold.2. This Suit is not concerned with the reason why she claims the sale of the shares. The Plaintiff must show her legal right, title and interest in those shares. If that is shown, the Plaintiff would be entitled to sell or transfer those shares or to hold them as her own.3. The Defendant No. 3 claims right, title and interest in the shares pursuant to the nomination executed in his favour. The nomination has been executed well prior to ...

Rajmal Lakhichand and Ishwarlal Shankarlal Lalwani Vs. the Commissione ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1776,2010(175)LC159(Bombay)

V.C. Daga, J.1. This is a reference made by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) pursuant to the order dated 17th March, 1999 passed by this Court under Section 133(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. Statement of Case:2. The factual context giving rise to the present reference, in brief, is as under:On the basis of the information gathered by the DRI that large quantity of about 132 bricks of silver had been smuggled through sea route and diverted to Jalgaon, while melting of silver was undergoing, the officers commenced investigations and succeeded on 13th February, 1993 in identifying the concerned parties, who had received smuggled silver.3. Premises of the applicants M/s. Rajmal Lakhichand at Jalgaon were searched. The owner thereof Mr. Ishwarlal Lalwani was not present at the time of search. The search resulted into recovery of silver in Choursa form weighing 1,913.256 kgs. Statements of various persons were recorded. Shri Lalwani was summoned...

Dattatray Namdeo Patil Vs. Ram Namdeo Patil and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally.2. The petitioner, who is original defendant No. 4, has challenged the impugned order, below Exhibit 90, dated 22nd July, 2008 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panvel thereby allowing the Application filed by the plaintiff directed the defendants to begin the evidence in a Suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral property between the parties, referring to Rule 1 of Order XVIII of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by observing that defendant No. 4 has to begin the evidence.3. Admittedly, no such Application to begin the evidence was filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 4. The Application was filed by the plaintiff. In the Suit, the defendants admit that the suit property is an ancestral property; and the plaintiff was separated from 1979; and he is not entitled for partition and the reliefs. This cannot be treated as admitted facts by overlooking the whole pleading of the parties. This it...

Sau. Manda R. Thaore W/O Sh. Ramaji Ghanshyam Thaore Vs. Sh. Ramaji Gh ...

Court: Mumbai

ORDER(i) Criminal Revision Application No. 317/2006 is dismissed.(ii) Respondent is directed to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) to the applicant - Manda within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the same shall be recovered by the Family Court by adopting procedure for recovery of fines....

Rashtriya Chemical Fertilizers Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking, Regi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1994

A.P. Bhangale, J.1. Rule. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 waives notice. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 1.2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus in the nature of an order or direction, ordering and/or declaring that the arbitral proceedings between the petitioners and respondent No. 1 stands terminated and the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of Mr. Jagdish C. Sheth, Captain V.K. Gupta and Mr. G.J. Kodwaney has ceased to have jurisdiction over the disputes with further prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 24-12-2009, as also the Minutes of the Meeting dated 19-12-2009 and the e-mail dated 18-12-2009, addressed by respondent No. 2 to the petitioners.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are thus:Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Sector Undertaking, owned by the Government of India ...

Sunil Mantri Realty Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Companie ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1935

R.K. Deshspande, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff, challenging order dated 29.09.2009 passed below Exh.5 by the learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 856/2009 rejecting the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from (1) acting or enforcing the order dated 17.08.2009 canceling the acceptance of tender of the plaintiff, (2) forfeiting the amount of earnest money deposit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/, (3) from removing the security guards appointed by the plaintiff over the suit property and (4) inviting the fresh bids in respect of the development work in question, pursuant to advertisement published on 27.08.2009.2. The facts that are necessary to decide the controversy raised in this appeal are stated below.The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The parties shall be called hereinafter acco...

Ashley Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai - V

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko: After examining the records, we find that, in adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 27/01/2000, the original authority had confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 1.35 lakhs against the assessee under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and imposed on them equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. Interest on duty under Section 11AB was also demanded. Besides this, a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the assessee under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules. An amount of Rs. 1.25 lakhs which was voluntarily deposited by the party during the course of investigation was appropriated towards the above demand of duty. The appeal filed by the assessee against the order of adjudication was rejected by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal of the assessee. 2. Though, in this appeal, the appellant disowned duty liability, there is no serious challenge...

Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai - Vi Vs. Vidyut Metallic Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko: This appeal filed by the department is directed against the order of the lower appellate authority. 2. During the period from April, 1995 to March, 1997, the assessee was paying duty on their final products on the basis of provisional assessments. The pricelists filed by them came to be approved eventually by the Assistant Commissioner as per order dated 17/06/1999, wherein, higher PME (Post-Manufacture Expenses) deductions than what was claimed was allowed for the periods 1995-96 and 1996-97. In the said order, The Assistant Commissioner advised the Superintendent of Central Excise of the Range concerned to complete finalisation of the assessments under Rule 9B(5) read with Rule 173I and intimate to the assessee accordingly. Pursuant to this advice, the Superintendent on 21/06/1999 issued a letter to the assessee intimating that the provisional assessments had been finalised and that necessary remarks had been made on RT-12s for the aforesaid period. This letter was...