Mumbai Court December 1997 Judgments

Ashok Jaiswarup JaIn Vs. Ms. Annamma Verghese and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR555; 1998(3)BomCR663

ORDERV.P. Tipnis, J.1. As the point involved was short, at the time of the admission itself, we had fixed this matter for hearing.2. The appeal impugns-the order dated 6th October 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in Summons for Judgement No. 519 of 1996 in Summary Suit No. 2693 of 1996. The suit was filed on the basis of dishonoured cheque issued by the defendant NO. 1 which is a firm dealing in construction. The case of the plaintiff is that for the purposes of giving a flat, certain amounts were accepted by the defendant No. 3. The defendant No. 3 who is a Partner of the defendant No. 1 firm also represented to be an estate agent. The cheque was issued in favour of the defendant NO. 1 firm. The flat not having been made available, the amount was repaid by the defendant No. 3 by issuance of different cheques on behalf of the defendant No. 1. Out of these cheques, one cheque was dishonoured and payment of other two cheques was stopped. Summons for Judgement was taken out on the ...

Atul Sashikant Mude Vs. Niranjana Atul Mude

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1998Bom264; 1998(1)ALLMR587; 1998(4)BomCR83; II(1998)DMC271; 1998(1)MhLj618

ORDERV.P. Tipnis, J.1. This appeal, which was admitted by the 1st Court on 29th July 1997, was taken up for hearing as it was stated on behalf of the appellant that the order is such that it is impossible for him to comply with and will result into grave hardship to the appellant-husband.2. The order impugned is an ad-interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in a Notice of Motion taken out in a suit filed by the wife under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. The learned Judge by the impugned order dated 17th July 1997 awarded an ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- per month commencing from July 1997. The amount, the learned Judge clarified would include Rs. 1,600/- which the defendant-husband is prepared to pay for the maintenance of the child.3. Mr. Naphade, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-husband, read out the impugned order and raised three points....

Vulcan Engineers Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(76)LC189Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Vulcan Engineers Ltd. being aggrieved with the order-in-original dated 20.8.1992 passed by the Collector, Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Bombay, the two issues for our consideration are - (i) relating to the Import Trade Control (ITC) Policy and (ii) relating to the applicability of exemption Notification No. 155/86-Cus. dated 1.3.1986 (as amended). The Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Bombay had imposed a fine of Rs. 3.0 lakh on each subject Bill of Entries (there were two Bill of Entries involved and had imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the importers for misdeclaring the goods in the import documents. He had also held that out of three items, two items were not eligible for benefit of exemption Notification No. 155/86-Cus. dated 1.3.1986.2. We have heard Shri S.N. Kantawala, Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR for the respondent Revenue.3. We have carefully considered the matter. The appellants had applied for...

Sipta Coated Steel Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)LC425Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue for decision in these appeals is whether certain goods have to be considered "inputs" within the meaning of Rule 57A and whether or not they fall within the category of excluded inputs. In the orders impugned in the appeal the Commissioners (Appeals) have held that they fall within the excluded category within the meaning of the rule and hence demand cannot be taken. Credit was taken on these inputs in January and February, 1995 in E/636/97 and December, 1995 in Appeal E/947/97.2. Representative of the appellant explained that Hytherm 500 is used in thermopack which is used in machine or apparatus in which degreasing solution is heated. The degreasing solution is required to remove impurities on the surface of the cold rolled steel strips after they are rolled. He explained that degreasing solution could not be put to proper use unless it was raised to the required degree of temperature and that without the use of Hytherm 500 oil, this cannot be achieved.The Hytherm oil i...

Tata Consultancy Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT174Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against confiscation of goods for the re-export of which the appellant had filed a bill of entry and imposition of penalty on the appellant. The representative of the appellant says that he limits the appeal to the imposition of penalty.2. The facts as explained by the representative of the appellant are that a consignment of computer parts was mistakenly sent by its supplier M/s. MasterCard International, New York to the appellant. On receiving the advice relating to the cargo the appellant took up the matter with MasterCard International, which informed it that the goods had been shipped to India by mistake. Appellant's help was sought in having the goods re-exported, because of its long-standing business relationship between it and MasterCard International. The appellant wrote to the Customs Deptt. in its letter dated 13-9-1991 advising it appropriately. It subsequently filed a bill of entry on 19-9-1992. In this bill of entry it is shown as the importer. There is,...

Ramkumar Jalan Vs. Income Tax Officer. (Also Ito V.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. As all these appeals concern the same group of the assessee, involve penalties imposed under ss. 271(1)(c), 273(c), 273(a) and 273(2)(a), they are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessment in this case has a chequered history. The assessee is a registered firm and in the books of accounts, following cash credits appear in the books of Jalan HUF Amanat Account/Lohia Agricultural account.Asst. yr. P. Y. (Samvat year) Total cash credit appearing in Jalan------------------------------------------------------------------------1976-77 2031 25.491977-78 2032 219.001978-79 2033 213.001979-80 2034 36.001980-81 2035 15.001981-82 2036 25.00 3. For asst. yr. 1976-77 the return of income was filed on 22nd January, 1977, and the assessments for asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 were completed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 144B of the Act. The assessee failed in the first appeal. However, on the second appeal, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of ...

Vishnu Dattatraya Redekar and Others Vs. the Director Nehru Centre and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR3; 1998(2)BomCR269; (1998)1BOMLR612; [1998(79)FLR286]; 1998(1)MhLj689

ORDERA.Y. Sakhare, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for declaration that there exists relationship of master and servant between the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 and that the respondent No. 1 be declared as direct employer of the security guards as per the list at Ex. 'A' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners have also prayed for injunction against the respondent No. 1 from terminating the services of the security guards.2. As per petitioners, the respondent No. 1 is an appropriate Government for the purposes of the notification dated 9-12-1976 issued by the Central Government under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1971. As per the petitioners, in view of this notification, the respondent No. 1 is prohibited from employing contract labours for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of building owned by the establishment in respect of whic...

Khemka and Co. (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Polish Ocean Lines

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR334; 1998(2)BomCR371; 1998(1)MhLj508

ORDERV.R. Datar, J.1. The petitioner Khemka & Co. (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Calcutta. The petitioner has been carrying on business as protecting agents at the port of Calcutta. The respondent Polish Ocean Lines is also a company having its office at 81364 Gydnia 10, Lutego 24: P O B 265 Poland and registered under Polish Law. The respondent is having its branch office at Bharat Insurance Building, Nariman Circle, Bombay-23.2. The respondent owns a vessel m.v. 'Leningard'. By an agreement of 27th March 1963 the petitioner agreed to act as protecting and safeguarding agent of the said vessel. Under 4 different bills of lading, bearing Nos. 55/T to 58/T, all dated 28th November 1988, the said vessel of respondent agreed to carry 17,997 bags (399.850 MTs) of whole yellow peas from Gdansk, Poland to the Port of Calcutta and deliver the same to the order of Shipper one Asrimpex of Hungary. G...

M.V. Mariner Iv, a Foreign Flag Vessel and Another Vs. Videsh Sanchar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR755; 1998(5)BomCR312; 1998(1)MhLj751

ORDERV.P.Tipnis, J.1. This appeal by the original defendants impugns the order dated 27th February, 1997, passed by the learned Judge in Notice of Motion No. 285 of 1997 in Admiralty Suit No. 113 of 1996. The notice of motion was moved by the defendants inter alia tor a relief that the order of arrest of the first defendant vessel be vacated and the plaintiffs be directed to pay costs by way of damages at the rate of U.S.$ 5,000/- per day.2. The plaintiffs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. filed an Admiralty Suit No. 113 of 1996 against (1) m.v. Mariner IV a foreign vessel, and (2) AI-Fatah Shipping Co. incorporated under the laws of U.A.E. for recovery of U.S. $ 77,21,133.583 together with interest by way of damages for the loss suffered by the plaintiffs due to the damage caused to the plaintiffs property by the vessel m.v. Mariner II. The plaintiffs alleged that they have two under water submarine optical fibre telecommunication cables laid by them (i) stretching from Singapore to Marseille...

Ramkumar Jalan Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Mumbai)768

ORDERH.C. SRIVASTAVA, AM:As all these appeals concern the same group of the assessee, involve penalties imposed under ss. 271(1)(c), 273(c), 273(a) and 273(2)(a), they are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessment in this case has a chequered history. The assessee is a registered firm and in the books of accounts, following cash credits appear in the books of Jalan HUF Amanat Account/Lohia Agricultural account.Asst. yr.P. Y (Samvat year)Total cash credit appearing in Jalan HUF Amanat Alc Lohia Agrl. Farm Alc. (Rs. in lakhs)1976-77203125.491977-782032219.001978-792033213.001979-80203436.001980-81203515.001981-82203625.003. For asst. yr. 1976-77 the return of income was filed on 22nd Jan., 1977, and the assessments for asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 were completed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 144B of the Act. The assessee failed in the first appeal. However, on the second appeal, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) who in ...