Mumbai Court August 2010 Judgments

Fakira Shamrao Sormare, Age30 Years, Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai Aurangabad

1. Faradsheet shows that this revision was admitted vide order dated 21/04/2007 and the applicant was released on bail by the same order. Within meantime, the sentence was suspended in terms of prayer clause 'D' of the revision.2. Rule.3. Rule made returnable forthwith.4. Heard learned counsel for applicant and respondent. It appears that the applicant herein was convicted by the learned J.M.F.C. Jafarabad in RCC No.73/2004 for the offence punishable u/s. 498A of The IPC and was sentenced to suffer SI for one year and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.2,000/ i.d. to suffer further SI for one month. It appears that the applicant, who is accused in the said criminal case, preferred criminal appeal no.63/2006 before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna, who by judgment and order dated 07/04/2007, dismissed the appeal.5. As stated in the opening paragraph of this revision, being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge Jalna in Criminal Appeal No.63/2006, the appell...

Bharat Automotive Pressings (India) Pvt Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of C ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko 1. In this appeal filed by the assessee, the challenge is against demand of duty of Rs.1,15,238.74 for the period from March 1994 to January 1999, demand of interest thereon under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, and the penalty of Rs.76,339/- imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Act. The appellant has challenged the demand of duty both on merits and on the ground of limitation. However, at this stage, the ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the challenge against the demand of duty on merits is not being pressed in view of the settled position of law that the amortized value of moulds and dies supplied free of cost by the buyer is liable to be included in the assessable value of the final products manufactured by making use of such moulds and dies. In this connection, the ld. Counsel has fairly invited our attention to the decision of the Tribunal’s Larger Bench in Mutual Industries Ltd., Vs. CCE, 2000 (117) ELT 578 (Tri-LB). The ld. C...

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Special Steel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko 1. A valuation dispute is involved in this appeal of the Revenue. During the period of dispute (from October 1994 to June 2000), the respondent had cleared wire rods (both mild steel and high carbon) to their sister units at Tarapur and Borivli at lower rates when compared to the price charged to independent buyers in respect of identical goods. The department therefore issued periodical show-cause notices, 15 in number covering the above period, to the respondent seeking to recover differential duty of over Rs.25 crores. In each of the show-cause notices, the maximum rate charged to independent buyers during the relevant period was adopted as basis for determination of the assessable value of the goods transferred to the sister units in the same period, an exercise done in terms of Rule 6 (b) (i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. The respondent contested the demand of duty on numerous grounds. They submitted that they had given various discounts to independ...

M/S Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-ii ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellants have filed this appeal against the order of denial of interest on delayed refund. 2. The facts of the case are that on 8.1.1990, the appellants filed a refund claim of Rs.98,094.63 being the duty wrongly paid by them. The said claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on 24.8.1995. Against the said order, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the refund claim to the appellants vide order dated 29.10.1999. The order was not challenged by the department and same had attained finality, but the Assistant Commissioner again rejected the refund claim vide its order dated 7.8.2001. The same was again challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), who also rejected the claim vide his order dated 23.2.2002. The appellants came before this Tribunal and this Tribunal had allowed the refund claim vide its order dated 26.3.2006. Again the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim to the...

Navnit Motors Pvt Ltd., S.N. Das Freight Forwarders Pvt Ltd. Vs. the C ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko 1. Both the appeals are against the Commissioner’s order No.S/10-23/2003 dated 13/03/2003 imposing penalties on the appellants. The appeal filed by M/s.Althaf Shoes Pvt. Ltd., aggrieved by redemption fine of Rs.10.77 lakhs and a penalty of Rs.5.38 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner, was allowed by this bench vide order No.A/385/WZB/05-C-II dated 11/05/2005. In the written submissions filed by the present appellants, they have prayed for allowing their appeals also in view of the said order passed by this bench. The ld. JDR submits that the said order of the Tribunal was not appealed against. 2. The penalties on the appellants are under Section 112 of the Customs Act and the same were imposed on the ground that these appellants had abetted the offence committed by the importer. Now that the penalty imposed on the importer for the offence allegedly committed by them stands set aside vide order No.A/385/WZB/05-C-II dated 11/05/2005 in appeal No.C/404/03, the penaltie...

Shri Nasir Maqbul Shaikh Age 36 Years, Vs. Commissioner of Police, Sol ...

Court: Mumbai

1) The petitioner, who is a brother of detenu Salim Maqbul Shaikh (Salim Shethji), by this petition has challenged the Order of detention of six months dated 13.03.2010, passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Solapur, which was served on the detenu on the same day, under The Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, on various grounds. Mr. S.R. Chitnis, the learned Senior Counsel, has restricted the submission based upon Vijay Kumar Dharna alias Kokta v. Union of India & ors., AIR 1990 SC 1184, by referring to grounds in para 7(b) which reads as under: "(b) The petitioner says and submits that he has been supplied with Marathi translation of the order of detention in which it is wrongly stated that the petitioner is prevented from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of `public order', whereas in the English verse it is stated that the petitioner is detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any man...

M/S. Kachhi Properties, Satara, a Partnership Firm, Through Partner an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2011(NOC)185(Bom)

1. A common question about the necessity of granting a temporary injunction to restrain a defendant from creating third party interests/alienating the property pending suit, in the face of provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereafter referred to as "the TP Act") has been raised in these appeals. It was ably argued by learned counsel for the parties therein, unfolding various facets of the question. Before adverting to the factual aspects, it would be useful to first deal with this question. 2. It is common for plaintiffs in suits related to property to seek temporary injunction only to restrain defendant from alienating the property or creating third party interests, during the pendency of the suit. Such prayers are made mostly in suits for partition and separate possession of shares in joint family property, suits for specific performance of an agreement of sale, development agreement, suits by plaintiffs in possession of property, seeking to avoid a trans...

Shri Sai Trading Company, Registered Partnership Firm Through Its Part ...

Court: Mumbai

This is an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator.2. In circumstances which I will shortly mention the arbitral tribunal constituted with the consent of the parties withdrew from the reference in view of certain allegations having been made against them by the respondent. It is for this reason that the application has been filed.3. The applicant and the respondent had entered into an agreement dated 27th April, 2006. The respondent appointed the applicant as an agent for collection of octroi imposed by the respondent for the period 1st May, 2006 to 30th April, 2007. The applicant was to pay a sum of Rs. 43, 06, 66, 666 during the contract period. The applicant was entitled to collect the entire octroi at the rate fixed by the respondent on the goods imported within the octroi limits of the respondent for the said period and for the area stipulated in the agreement. Clauses 15 and 16 of the agreement read as under:...

Sau. Sangita W/O Ashok Borawar, Aged About 29 Years, and ors. Vs. Sou. ...

Court: Mumbai Nagpur

1. The order passed by the learned 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Criminal Revision No.21 of 2006 as well as in companion revisions, being Criminal Revision No.42 of 2006 and Criminal Revision No.34 of 2006, is subjected to challenge in these matters. The Revisional Court, while dismissing the criminal revisions tendered by the accused, proceeded to allow the revision tendered by the respondent/complainant and further directed issuance of process against the original accused Nos.8 to 16 for offences punishable under Sections 494 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Magistrate, while dealing with the complaint tendered by the respondent/complainant, had earlier directed issuance of process against original accused Nos.1 to 7 in view of the order passed on 222006. The Revisional Court has confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate and in addition thereto, was pleased to summon the remaining accused arrayed in the complaint.2...

Smt. Indubai Wd/O Bhiayalal Dube Aged About 50 Years, and ors. Vs. San ...

Court: Mumbai Nagpur

1. The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 25th June, 2008 passed by learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal (in short "the Tribunal") in MACP No. 24/2003, whereby the insurer company/ respondent No.3 herein, was exonerated from joint and several liability to pay compensation awarded to the claimants.2. It is the grievance of the appellants that the victim Bhaiyalal was travelling as a nonfare paying passenger in the offending motor vehicle Truck bearing Registration No. MH 296655 which had after giving a dash to the roadside tree, turned turtle. In the said truck there were articles of food material and utensils for cooking which were meant for preparation of breakfast and Bhaiyalal was travelling as nonfare paying passenger. It is submitted that the InsurerCompany can not escape the liability for payment of compensation, particularly when the policy cover note was comprehensive and over and above the Act to cover nonfare paying passenger...