Mumbai Court December 1997 Judgments

Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT416Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is manufacturer of electric fans. It sells fans to wholesale dealer from twenty depots located in different parts of the country. It has no sale at the factory for sale from 16 of these depots the appellant had one price. This price was higher than the sales made from the remaining four depots which are located in Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Kanpur and Ghaziabad. The department was of the view that the assessable value for sales to wholesale dealer must be one and there cannot be more than one assessable value for goods sold to buyers belonging to same class. It, therefore, issued notice proposing enhancement of the value of the goods sold from these four depots. The Assistant Collector whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) confirmed this proposal. Hence this appeal.2. Advocate for the appellants, contends that it is now settled law that there can be different prices for the buyer of the same class in different areas and that discounts at different rates fr...

Quest International India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT358Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellant was a manufacturer of perfumery compounds, aromatic chemicals, flavouring essences and similar goods. Following the outbreak of a fire in its factory on 29-9-1980, which destroyed all records of finished goods and raw material, it claimed remission of duty. Notice issued to the assessee proposed to deny remission of duty on the ground that the remission claimed of Rs. 2.40 lakhs which was calculated on the value of finished goods of Rs. 30 lakhs calculated on the basis of daily clearances in the past was excessive. The assessee replied to the notice stating that, since the goods which were destroyed had been consumed in the fire, it had based the claim for insurance on the value of finished goods which were in stock on 31st March, 1982 and 30th June, 1982 the last days of its full quantum preceding the price. In arriving at the duty payable it had added to this figure the items which would be includible in addition to the value of finished goods, in the assessable value t...

Bhavani Handloom Industries Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

Court: DRAT Mumbai

1. The short and the only point about acceptance of 40 Hundies and the liability thereunder is involved in this appeal preferred by the original defendants against whom the decree for Rs. 13,85,635.15 with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum is passed on the basis of the said 40 Hundies.M/s. Bhilwara Wooltex who is not the party to the suit had drawn 40 Hundies on different dates for different amounts on the documents during the period from 24.12.1985 to 11.9.1986. The Hundies were in favour of the applicant Bank. The amounts under the Hundies were payable after the particular period. The applicant Bank on the receipt of the Hundies forwarded them through Punjab National Bank for payment.The defendants in whose name the Hundies were drawn dishonoured them.3. It was alleged by the applicant Bank that the Hundies were accepted by the defendants on their premises. In spite of acceptance the defendants have refused to pay Hundies amounts which were calculated at Rs. 11,98,134.20. ...

Rsdv Finance Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)66ITD378(Mum.)

1. In the instant case the Assessing Officer (AO for short) had completed the assessment under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, the AO passed an order under section 154 whereby he re-computed the profits by applying the provisions of section 115J of the IT Act. He, thus, computed the book profits at Rs. 2,08,445 as against Rs. 78,903 computed by the appellant-company and thus computed the total income at Rs. 62,533 as against Rs. 23,670 computed by the appellant-company. This was done because he included the share of profit received by the appellant-company from two Associations of Persons (AOP for short) viz., Sunita Corporation and Ram Corporation which was included in the book profits of the assessee-company but on which the assessee-company claimed, it had paid tax at the maximum marginal rate under section 167B of the IT Act and hence, the appellant-company had excluded it from the computation of the book profits.2. The assessee challenged the order of t...

Mahendra C. Vakharia Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998CriLJ1924

ORDER1. Heard Mr. Bardav for petitioner and Mr. Patwardhan for respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner has challenged the forfeiture of his bail bond by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Remand Application No. 263 of 1994 by order dated 23rd March, 1995 as confirmed in Criminal Revision Application No. 136 of 1996 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay by order dated 13th September, 1996. 3. The present petition has come to be filed in the backdrop of following facts : The petitioner was arrested for FERA violation on 12th September, 1994 for offences under sections 8(3) and 9(1)(a) of the FERA Act, 1973. He came to be released on bail by the order dated 28th September, 1994 whereby he was directed to be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- or alternately by furnishing cash bail of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioner had availed of the said order of bail by furnishing cash bail of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It appears that subsequently detention order cam...

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited Vs. Diamant Bora ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR696; 1998(2)BomCR460

ORDERS.H. Kapadia, J.1. Suit No. 3854 was instituted by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,18,20,822/- under the Over Draft Facility as also for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,43,56,262/- under Short Term Loan Facility together with interest as mentioned in prayer Clause (a) of the plaint. The suit was to recover the amount advanced by the plaintiffs to the 1st defendant and to enforce the securities in that respect. The suit was also to enforce the guarantee of defendant No. 2 in favour of the Bank. Defendant No. 2 is the Director of defendant No. 1 Company. Defendant No. 2 was used in his personal and individual capacity as the guarantor of the dues of defendant No. 1.2. The above suit came to be decreed vide Consent Decree dated November 1, 1993.3. Thereafter, the Bank moved by way of Execution Proceedings and Warrant of Attachment came to be issued on November 30, 1996 for recovery of the decretal amount.4. In the said Execution...

Balwant Pandurang Gargate Vs. Vidya Balwant Gargate and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR162; (1998)1BOMLR707

ORDERA.B. Palkar, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Misc. Criminal Revision Application No. 74/96 on 22-7-1997. By this the learned Sessions Judge upheld the order passed by the learned Magistrate, Exhibit 'B' which is at page 24 of the petition. It is rightly pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge in his order that considering the short point required to be decided, it is not necessary to go into the detailed facts of the case. According to the petitioner, there was an order of monthly maintenance allowance passed against him by the Magistrate and for arrears of Rs. 8,700/-. Criminal Application No. 205 of 1994 was filed. In that application, there was an application moved jointly i.e. signed by both the parties to the effect that the wife has received Rs. 5,000/- by way of maintenance allowance and that she has given up the claim for remaining amount and also for recovery of anything in fut...

Smt. Kunda Raghuvir Gharse Vs. M/S. Timble Planting Private Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR65; 1998(4)BomCR520

ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. The petitioner is the original defendant of Special Civil Suit No. 22/95 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Sanguem. The respondent/plaintiff had filedthe said suit claiming the following relief, as contained in paragraph 33, page 50:'(a) That by an order and decree in the nature of permanent injunction, thedefendant be restrained from entering or interfering or undertaking anymining operations or disturbing the possession of the plaintiff or the suitproperty beyond the mining pit which exists and is as shown withinbrown colour on the plan annexed.'2. As can be gathered from the aforesaid para that a permanent injunction is sought restraining the defendant from doing the mining operations beyond the mining pit which exists.3. So far as the area of the mining pit is concerned, initially there was some dispute. According to the plaintiff, with reference to the plan attached to the plaint by it, that an area was limited to the portion described in brown colo...

Shri Mahendra C. Vakharia Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)699

ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. Heard Mr. Barday for petitioner and Mr. Patwardhan for respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner has challenged the forfeiture of his bail bond by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Remand Application No. 263 of 1994 by order dated 23rd March 1995 as confirmed in Criminal Revision Application No. 136 of 1996 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay by order 13th September, 1996.3. The present petition has come to be filed in the backdrop of following facts:The petitioner was arrested for F.E.R.A. violation on 12th September, 1994 for offences under sections 8(3) and 9(1)(a) of the F.E.R.A. Act, 1973. He came to be released on bail by the order dated 28th September 1994 whereby he was directed to be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- or alternately by furnishing cash bail of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioner had availed of the said order of bail by furnishing cash bail of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It appears that subsequently detentio...

Dhanajirao Jivarao Jadhav and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Othe ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR302; 1998(2)BomCR605; (1998)2BOMLR367; 1998(2)MhLj462

ORDERM.B. Shah, C.J.1. The petitioners, who are permanent residents of Kolhapur City, have filed this petition as a public interest litigation for directions to the respondents to take immediate measures to eliminate the supply of polluted water to the citizens of Kolhapur as also for implementing water supply scheme of supplying water from Kalammawadi Dam to the city of Kolhapur by closed pipeline.2. It has been pointed out that as per the survey conducted by the United Nations Organisation (U.N.O.). Kolhapur is one of the twelve cities in the world which are getting polluted water for drinking purpose. It has also been contended that as per thesurvey conducted by the U.N.O., Panchganga river, from where the drinking water is supplied to Kolhapur City, is one of the ten rivers in the world which are having highest polluted water. Due to such polluted water, diseases like gastro-enteritis, jaundice, diarrhoea, dysentery and Dombivli fever are on increase and number of deaths on account...