Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Indian Petrochemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to the refund of Rs. 4.36 crores which it deposited as duty pending appeal to the Tribunal, in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner passed on 31.12.91 as duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Dy. Commissioner that the assessee having failed to establish that the incidence of duty has not been passed on, the amount which he accepts is available as refund, should be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund and not refunded to the appellant.2. The judgment of the Tribunal in Suvidhe Ltd. v. UOI 1996 (82) ELT 177 makes it clear that a deposit ordered under Section 35F is not subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 11B. The objection of the departmental representative is that the amount was deposited not in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, but before the appeal was filed. Therefore it is not a deposit made under Section 35F.We are unable to agree. Section ...

Vashdev Morumal Sawlani Vs. Yogesh Mehta and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR156; 2002(2)BomCR582; (2002)2BOMLR412; 2002(2)MhLj76

F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The petitioner herein was the original applicant and the respondent No. 1 herein was the original respondent. The applicant herein sought reference from the second respondent. By the said reference, petitioner herein claimed from the respondent as on 1st February, 1997 a sum of Rs. 20 lacs, plus interest at the rate of 20% p. a. on the said amount. The arbitral tribunal by the impugned award dated 19-7-1999 dismissed the reference and consequently rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the said award. Various grounds were taken in the petition including that the constitution of the tribunal was contrary to Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, in view of the judgment of this court in Stock Exchange Mumbai v. Vinay Bubna and Ors., : AIR1999Bom266 . The learned counsel does not press the said contention. It is however, contended that the petitioner reserves the right to challenge the sai...

Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Umrer Vs. Divisional Joint R ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR203; 2002(3)BomCR743; (2002)2BOMLR924; 2002(2)MhLj583

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Gordey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Fulzele learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4, and Shri Tambde, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.2. The petition is directed against the order dated 31-10-2001 passed by the respondent No. 1 Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur whereby preliminary objection raised by the petitioner Agricultural Produce Market Committee to the maintainability of the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 2 under Rule 104 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 came to be rejected.3. Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that by order dated 11-9-2001 the respondent No. 2 was suspended pending enquiry. It is contended that this suspension is an interim suspension and cannot be treated as penalty contemplated under Rule 102 of the said Rules. It is further contended ...

K.K. Modi Vs. Securities Appellate Tribunal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR523; [2003]113CompCas418(Bom)

B.P. Singh, C.J.1. This appeal has been preferred by Mr. K.K. Modi against the Order of the Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 31-7-2001 under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ('the Act'). The Tribunal, Mumbai; in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 15T of the Act, set aside the order of the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) dated 16-7-2001, and held that Modipon Ltd., the respondent No. 2 herein, even though a 'promoter' of Modi Rubber Limited ('MRL'), the respondent No. 3, cannot be held to be an 'acquirer' or a person acting or deemed to be 'acting in concert' with the acquirers, and therefore, ineligible to participate in the public offer made by the acquirers to the shareholders of MRL, the target company. It held that every 'promoter' cannot be said to be an acquirer or a person acting in concert with the acquirer, or deemed to be acting in concert with the acquirer, unless it is shown that he either acquires or agrees to...

Conart Engineers Ltd. Vs. Shamrock Industrial Co. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR486; 2002(2)BomCR57; (2002)2BOMLR488; 2002(3)MhLj243

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The case of the petitioner is : pursuant to their tender being accepted, the contract was entered into on 8 February, 1996. Clause 37 of the contract provided for reference of disputes to arbitration. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, the petitioners invoked the arbitral clause by their letter dated 2 May, 2001. In the said letter, it was set out that the respondents owed money to the petitioners. It is averred that on 31 March, 1998, the respondents had issued a cheque for Rs. 1 lakh in part payment. That cheque when deposited was dishonoured. By letter of 27 May, 1998, demand was made under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A pay order for the sum of Rs. 1 lakh dated 28 May, 1998, was issued which was received by the petitioners on 30 May, 1998.1.1 It is averred that as there are disputes and differences, the petitioners were invoking the arbitral clause. They appointed their arbitrator and called on the respondents to appoint...

Prabhakar Shankar Deodhar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its Secreta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR106

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In these proceedings which are instituted in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Union of India in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, to the Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India, and to the Indian Statistical Institute, or to any one of them, to constitute an autonomous body for releasing, 'Television Rating Points (TRPs) in relation to Television Channels and programmes so as to have a 'common currency for the rating of Television channels and programmes duly acceptable to the advertisers and marketing companies, Government and general public with adequate checks and balance to ensure reliability thereof'. The petitioner has stated that he is a professional Engineer-Scientist with over 45 years of experience in the field of Electronics, Communications and Information Technology. The petitioner was the Chairman of the Electronics Commission of India during...

M.V. sea Success I Vs. Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and I ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR537

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The learned Single Judge while dismissing Notice of Motion No. 2455/2000 with regard to prayer (a) taken out by the Vessel m.v. 'Sea Success I' and her owners S.S. Shipping Corporation Inc. in Admiralty Suit No. 32/2000 has referred to the Division Bench the following question for its decision:'Whether a claim for unpaid insurance premia in respect of a ship amounts to 'necessary supplies' within the meaning of section 5 of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861 so as to constitute maritime claim?2. The aforesaid question is also involved in Appeal No. 739/2000 arising out of Notice of Motion No. 1376/1998 in Admiralty Suit No. 30/1998 and, therefore, both the aforesaid appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Besides the aforesaid question common to both appeals, there are distinct and separate issues involved which we shall deal with at an appropriate stage.3. At the outset, we may observe that we afforded extensive hearing to the learne...

Pratap Balkrishna Kedari Vs. Premadevi Laxminarayan Agarwal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR46

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Ms. Thadani appears for the respondent and points out that the respondent has received notice from the Registry of this Court dated September 29, 2001 which was served on him on October 30, 2001 stating that the appeal would be taken up for hearing on any date after 14 days of the receipt of the said notice which period is not yet over. This submission however, overlooks the fact that the said notice is a formal notice issued by the registry after admission of the appeal pursuant to the order dated June 29, 2001. Undoubtedly, the respondent has already entered appearance through Advocate before this Court who is pursuing this appeal from the first date of hearing on May 24, 2001 and the said Advocate represented the respondent even on September 28, 2001 when this Court directed that the hearing of this appeal is expedited and to be posted for final hearing in the week commencing from October 22, 2001. That direction was issued having regard to the fact that the ap...

Excellent Engineering Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT126Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal admitted and with consent of both sides taken up for disposal.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to modvat credit of the duty paid on "Metaquench 42, "Koolkut oil 40" and "Rustop". The credit has been denial on the ground that these are not essential for manufacture of the final product.3. In the affidavit affirmed on 1.11.2000 by the partner of the appellant, the use of these substances has been explained. Metaquench 42 is stated to be used as a quench oil used in tampering metal.Koolkut 40, it is stated to be used to prevent rust. Rustop-173 is also applied in order to ensure the products that the appellant manufacturer, ball bearings and roller bearings, are not attacked by rust. In the manufacture of the parts of ball bearings and roller bearing, Metaquench 40, a quenching oil would require for cutting and tempering of the machines for which quenching oil is used. Since it is essential that ball bearings are kept rust and corrosion free; as...

Chemofarbe Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A sum of Rs. 68,067/- towards duty and a penalty of Rs. 7000/- are required to be deposited. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the applicant took modvat credit beyond six months of the date of the invoice, which is prohibited by law.2. The counsel for the applicant contends that although entry in part II of RG23A, where the entry was made beyond six months from the date of invoice, entry in part I was made on the date of invoice. According to him, each of these entries from the part of taking credit.3. The issue is arguable. At this stage, I do not find that the applicant has a prima facie case. I therefore direct the applicant to keep unutilised in its modvat account pending appeal the duty in dispute. Subject to this condition, I waive deposit of the penalty and stay its recovery....