Mumbai Court January 2000 Judgments

Aviat Chemicals Private Limited Vs. Jagmohansingh Arora and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR28; 2000(3)BomCR90; 2000(3)MhLj66

ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This Judge's Summons has been taken out by the applicants Aviat Chemicals Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Aviat') for a direction to the respondents Jagmohansingh Arora & others (hereinafter referred to as 'Aroras') to pay to Aviat an amount of Rs. 1,22,77,000/- on account of loss of profit and loss of reputation and goodwill and legal costs. 2. Aroras had filed a Company Application being Company Application No. 152 of 1999 inter alia for setting aside of the order dated 17th December, 1998. This application was taken out by Aroras on the ground that Aviat had obtained the order dated 17th December, 1998 from the Company Court by suppressing material facts and by playing a fraud on the Court. On 4th February, 1999 Aroras were granted ad interim relief whereby Aviat was restrained from alienating or encumbering immovable property of Aviat and from carrying out production activities from the formulation unit which was set up by Aviat. An undertaking in t...

Rajiv Bhalchandra Gundewar Vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2000(85)FLR602]; (2000)IIILLJ774Bom

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J. 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr. Naik advocate waives service for respondents.2. By consent, Rule is heard finally at this stage.3. This writ petition is by the Petitioner who is complainant in complaint (ULP) No. 301 of 1999 before the 6th Labour Court at Mumbai. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Court on November 30, 1999 whereby, the said Court had directed the concerned Labour Court to decide the question whether the complainant is workman or not as a preliminary issue and if the answer is in the negative, the concerned Court is not required to decide the remaining issues. The learned counsel for Petitioner submits that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would occasion in unnecessary protraction of ligitation. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the procedure suggested by the Industrial Court is not in conformity with the settled law.4. Mr. Naik, learned counsel for employer on the other hand, submits that in the peculiar ...

Harakchand P. Vora Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)68TTJ(Mumbai)417

ORDERD. Manmohan, J.M.These two appeals are filed at the instance of the assessee and they pertain to assessment years 1985-86 and 1987-88.2. In the appeal for the assessment year 1985-86, the only issue raised before us pertains to the addition of Rs. 60,000 sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) referable to the undisclosed marriage expenses. On 9-9-1986, a search and seizure operation was conducted at the residential as well as business premises of the assessee. Certain incriminating documents were seized by the search party which showed that there was a marriage at the residence of the assessee. The assessee's younger brother was married on 22-3-1984. The expenditure incurred by the assessee, as debited in the books of account, was only Rs. 10,000 apart from an expenditure of Rs. 5,000 towards gift to the couple at the time of marriage. Considering the standard of living of the assessee and his family, the assessing officer was of the opinion that the assessee might have incurred ...

Premji Haridas and Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)69TTJ(Mumbai)1

ORDERD. Manmohan, J.M.Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 25-1-1980, both the revenue as well as the assessee sought reference of the following questions to the Hon'ble. High Court of Judicature at BombayAt the instance of revenue :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim in respect of Rs. 1,16,000 on account of custom's penalty as a deduction ?'At the instance of assessee.(2) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in refusing relief under section 35B to the assessee in respect of the following items :Rs.(i) Out of the total sum of Rs. 50,615 in respect of salary to staff for a part of it which is5,615(ii) Bank charges under packing credit scheme72,638(iii) Cash credit-Export credit guarantee commission and interest to others1,21,088(iv) Interest paid to others3,55,734(v) Adat commission74,903(vi) Commission and Brokerage66,616(vii) Travelling ex...

Mrs. Hansa V. Kapadia and ors. Vs. S. Ravindran and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR187

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the Advocate for the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 and A.P.P. for the State-respondent No. 2.2. In all there were originally two petitioners i.e. Mrs. Hansa V. Kapadia and Viren Kapadia. Counsel for the petitioners produced a true copy of the death certificate in respect of petitioner No. 2. It is not disputed that the petitioner No. 2 is dead, hence the proceedings against the petitioner No. 2 who was originally accused No. 4 stands abated.3. Respondent No. 1 filed complaint under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the I.P.C. against both the petitioners and three others before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade at Bombay. There were in all five accused in that complaint. Accused No. 1 was M/s. Polaris Travels Pvt. Ltd., of which other four accused were the Directors. There is no dispute that the complainant appointed original accused No. 1 as agent in the airlines and agreement known as 'Passengers Sales Agency' was entered into between the airlines and ac...

Diamant Board India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT429Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for determination in this appeal is eligibility to Notification 207/88 (till it was amended to 63/91 on 20-5-1991) to parts of saw blades manufactured by the appellant. The notification as it stood before the amendment exempted handsaws and blades for saws of all kinds (including slitting, slotting and toothless saw blades). In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) has denied the notification to parts of the blades on the ground that the notification did not exempt the parts of blades. These were included in the notification only by the amendment in May 1991.2. Appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice to it at the designated address. We have therefore proceeded to decide the appeal after reading the relevant papers and hearing the departmental representative.3. The contention in the appeal the notification should be read as if parts of the statute, for winch proposition of the Supreme Court judgment in CCE v. Parle Exports Pvt. Ltd., 1988 (38) E.L.T. ...

Chandanmal Vardichand JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT519Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision made in Order No. S/10-5/87D, dated 5-2-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs, Mumbai whereunder he held that the 37 drums containing 20,000 MT, which were of copper scrap birch have violated the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. He therefore levied a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh and imposed fine of Rs. 3,20,000/-.2. The appellant was importer of metal scrap including copper scrap.They imported copper scrap from Singapore. They entered into a contract with K. Ramanlal and Co., Singapore by invoice dated 30-5-1986 whereunder the appellants were purchasing copper scrap known as birch 200 MT @ US cents 55.00 per pound CIF Bombay. Delivery should be made June/July/August 1986 shipment in containers, packed in second-hand steel drums. Invoice dated 19-2-1986 issued by the sellers Ramanlal, Singapore agreeing to sell 37 drums copper scrap birch shipped per ss Sindabad Merine sailing from Singapore to Mumbai bearing t...

Smt. Dina P. Desai, Shri Rajiv P. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These fours appeals have been filed against the decision of Collector of customs (P) Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Original No.77/Collr/1991 dt. 30.9.91. Whereunder he has confiscated the gold ornaments valued at Rs. 1,59,177/- watches VCPs Panasonic Cordless Telephone and confiscated Metador Van. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was levied on appellant Pramod G. Desai, Rs. 5,000/- was levied on appellant Smt.Dina P. Desai, Rs. 2,000/- was levied on appellant Shri Rajiv P. Desai and Rs. 5,000/- was levied on appellant Shri Dipesh N. Shah.2. In these appeals, the fact appears to be that on 29.6.90 appellants came from Singapore landed at Bombay. From Bombay to Surat they travelled by a tempo owned by Shri Pramod G. Desai. On way to Surat, they were intercepted at Surat Sachin Road. The gold ornaments including 50 gm. Lagdy, 4 VCPs, 11 Wrist Watches and gold lagdi of 50 gms. (24 cts.) of Shri Pramod G. Desai were found. They were apprehended on 29.6.90 and produced before the Magistrate on 30.6.90...

Dhoot Compack Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT964Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant by letter dated 10-12-1999 has requested to decide this appeal on merits in their absence, in the light of the decisions in Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Modi Xerox Ltd. -1996 (88) E.L.T. 530 and C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Oswal Agra Furnace Ltd. -1999 (111) E.L.T. 542.2. For understanding the dispute in this case, a brief reference to the facts is necessary. The appellant is engaged in the manufacturing HDPE/PP tape, fabrics and sacks. They are availing Modvat facility under Rule 57A and on capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Show Cause Notice dated 17-6-1994 was issued to the assessee requiring them to state why Modvat credit claimed on an electronic weighing machine model 6-AW/031 should not be denied as violative of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In reply to the Show Cause Notice, they reiterated their stand that they are entitled to get capital goods credit. The adjudicating officer, as per Order-in-Original No. 183...

Shri Raju Newandran Jaswal and Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When these appeals were taken up for hearing, none of the appellants appeared even though notices were sent on 4.12.99. The facts of the case are that two appeals have been filed against the decision made in Order-in-Original No. 52/92 dt. 14.1.1992 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (P), Mumbai. In the said order he has confiscated the van bearing No. MTT-7943 under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962, and goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant Shyam Maghrajmal Chug under Section 112 of the Act. It would appear that the appellant Shyam M. Chug on 27.6.89 hired tourist Maruti Van from one Shri Raju N. Jeshwani of Ulhasnagar and went to Sahar Air Port alongwith the driver Ajit to receive his friends coming from Dubai. His friends came from Dubai on 28.6.89 and they met him out side the Air Port and as they were residing in different parts of Bombay they did not utilise the Maruti Van brought by the Chug...