Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-08-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Bom258; 2002(3)BomCR29; (2002)2BOMLR564; 2002(2)MhLj590
1. This Court while adjourning the matter on 12thDecember, 2001, had adjourned it with notice to theparties that the matter on the adjourned date would beheard both on admission and final hearing. In the lightof that, Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. Petitioners, M/s. Down Mangor ValleyResidents Welfare Association, are registered under theSocieties Registration Act. One of its aims andobjectives is to provide for a childrens park/garden inthe open space identified as Plot C of property known asBabquiadi surveyed under Survey No.59, P.T. SheetNo.150, Mangor Hill, Vasco da Gama. The petitioner no.2is the Joint Secretary of petitioner no.1. The Presidentand the Joint Secretary have been duly authorised by aResolution of petitioner no.1 to file the presentpetition. A few facts which are relevant for the purposeof disposal of this petition may now be set out. LateBruno Lizardo Fernandes was the owner of the propertywhich is the subject-matter of the present petition. Thesaid owner had applied to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-09-2002
Reported in : (2002)(143)ELT331Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal has been taken up for consideration with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the decision of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, whereunder he felt that there was a misdeclaration of export in respect of knitted jackets and pyjamas valued at US $ 36,000/- and US $ 18,000/- respectively and the drawback claim of Rs. 3,13,250/- was made. It transpires that the appellant has also exported other five items of textiles whereunder in respect of 100% cotton polyester woven jeans was procured by him from the market and exported the same. In respect of this item also the charge against the appellant was that he had misdeclared it. Yet it was found that he has not misdeclared it.3. During the course of the hearing, the learned Counsel pleaded before me that in respect of the items procured by the appellant from outside, it has been proved correct. When there is a mistake has occurred in respect of other two items ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-10-2002
Reported in : 2002BomCR(Cri)246; 2002CriLJ1026
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Seven persons namely Deoppa Ishwar Shinde, Ganpat Maruti Shinde, Rajaram Ganpat Shinde, Uttam Rajaram Shinde, Sukhdeo Rajaram Shinde, Ishwar Maruti Shinde and Murlidhar Appa Shinde were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions case No. 30 of 1986 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 and 324 r/w. 149, IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 22-7-1986, the learned trial Judge acquitted accused other than Deoppa Ishwar Shinde on all the counts but, convicted and sentenced Deoppa Ishwar Shinde in the manner stated hereinafter :--(i) Under Section 302, IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer four years R.I.;(ii) Under Section 324, IPC (No separate sentence was awarded).2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid convictions and sentence, Deoppa Ishwar Shinde has preferred the present appeal.The State of Maharashtra has however, not challenged the acquittal of the six acquitted accused.3. Shortly sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-04-2002
Reported in : (2002)104BOMLR86
D.S. Zoting, J.1. These are the two criminal appeals preferred by the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1993 on 14.2.1995. These two appellants along with one more accused namely Rakeshsingh @ Minty Tukmansing Bhadoriya, aged about 20 years were tried before the Sessions Court for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 120B and in the alternative under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the appellants along with Rakeshsingh were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one year. In addition to the above imprisonment awarded to the appellant Mangalabai, she is also convicted for offence punishable under Sections 194, 210, 203 of the Indian Penal Code an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-15-2002
Reported in : 2002(4)BomCR187
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. These two Notices of Motions which are taken out by the plaintiff and now transposed defendant No. 5, who had initially filed the suit as a next friend of the plaintiff respectively, can be disposed of by this common order.2. This is a case where two former employees of the deceased Hoshang Dalal, who was the brother of the present plaintiff Perin A. Dalal, are arraigned against each other for the noble(?) interest of protecting the estate of the plaintiff who is at the moment, because of her age and physical and psychological condition, is beyond understanding what the whole matter is about. But a few facts to understand the controversy which can be briefly narrated are as follows:The plaintiff Perin Dalal is the sister of one Hoshang Dalal (deceased). She is the sole heir of the deceased in accordance with the laws of succession governing parsi males dying intestate. Defendant No. 1 Roshan Minbattiwala was the secretary of the said deceased Hoshang Dalal for ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-05-2002
Reported in : [2002]122TAXMAN532(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J.Whether there is anything wrong in the decision dated 24-4-1990 taken by the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') not to allow the advocates to practise as company secretaries is the principal question in these two writ petitions and, therefore, these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Writ Petition No. 398 of 1990 Shri T.U. Khatri is the petitioner. According to Shri Khatri, he was granted certificate to practise law by the Bar Council of Maharashtra on 30-6-1973. Shri Khatri claims to have passed final examination conducted by the Institute and was admitted as an associate member of the Institute with effect from 30-10-1970. Subsequently, Shri Khatri was made fellow member of the Institute with effect from 23-8-1976. Upon application made by Shri Khatri to the Institute and upon fulfilment of requisite conditions including the no objection from the Bar Council of Maharash...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-05-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Bom268; 2002(3)ALLMR27; 2002(4)BomCR733; (2002)3BOMLR847
R.M. Lodha, J.1 .Whether there is anything wrong in thedecision dated 24th April, 1990 taken by theInstitute of Company Secretaries of India not toallow the Advocates to practise as CompanySecretaries is the principal question in these twoWrit Petitions and,therefore, these Writ Petitionswere heard together and are disposed of by thiscommon judgment.2. In Writ Petition No.398 of 1990Shri T.U.Khatri is the Petitioner. According toShri Khatri he was granted certificate to practiselaw by the Bar Council of Maharashtra on 30thJune, 1973. Shri Khatri claims to have passedfinal examination conducted by the Institute ofCompany Secretaries of India( for short theInstitute) and was admitted as an AssociateMember of the Institute w.e.f. 30th October,1970. Subsequently Shri Khatri was made FellowMember of the Institute w.e.f. 23rd August, 1976.Upon application made by Shri Khatri to theInstitute and upon fulfilment of requisiteconditions including the No Objection from the BarCouncil of Maharasht...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-07-2002
Reported in : (2002)(146)ELT124Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of duty confirmed of Rs. 14,26,266/- was granted and the appeal was taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants supplied lubricating oils to foreign going vessels as ship stores in terms of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which permitted such export without payment of duty on appropriate bonds being filed. Although such exports were made under bond for a number of years vide three show cause notices it was alleged that the facility was not available and therefore demand for duty as mentioned above was made covering the period December, 1998 to December, 2000. The duties were confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner on the ground that in terms of Notification 44/94-C.E., dated 22-9-1994 lubricating oils was shown to be a commodity eligible for export under claim for rebate in terms of Rule 12. He observed that there was no specific notification under Rule 13 for export of ship stores under bond. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-23-2002
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)37; 2002BomCR(Cri)708; 2002(4)MhLj266
D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. The four appellants/original accused Nos. 2 to 5 in three connected Appeals and Suo Motu Application No. 1 of 1998, viz. (1) Rajesh Namdeo Mhatre, (2) Dilip Mahadeo Surve, (3) Ashok Prafulla Naik, and (4) Chandrakant Ganpat Patre, were convicted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 860 of 1994. The appellants were originally charged and tried for the offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 341 read with Section 34, Section 506 read with Section 34 and Section 366 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with three other accused, viz. original accused Nos. 1, 6 and 7, who were acquitted of all the aforesaid offences. The appellants alleged to have committed rape on Suman Bhimrao Banpate during the intervening night of 22nd August, 1993 and 23rd August, 1993 between 12.15 a.m. and 2.30 a.m. on the terrace of the building at Koyana colony situate within the jurisdiction of R.C.F. Police Station.2. The appellants were sentenced to under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-12-2002
Reported in : (2003)(159)ELT446Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner revoking the licence issued to the appellant to function as a Custom House Agent at Kandla under the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter Regulation).3. We are not able to accept the ground in the appeal that the order was passed by the Commissioner ex parte without giving the appellant opportunity of being heard, in that the Commissioner passed an order without granting hearing in spite of a request made in letter 21-12-99.In this letter, while the applicant denied each of the charges in detail, it did not ask for any hearing. Regulation 23 of the Regulations which prescribed the procedure for suspending or revoking the licence contained in Sub-regulation (6) provisions for the agent to submit within a period of not more than 60 days from the receipt of the enquiry officer any representation he may wish to make against it.Sub-regulation (7) provides that after considering the report and representation the...
Tag this Judgment!