Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

K.B. Babu Menon Vs. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioer of Police and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1122; 2001(5)BomCR709; 2001BomCR(Cri)709

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner, who styles himself as the father of the detenue Anil B. Menon has impugned the detention order dated 11-3-2000 passed by respondent No. 1 Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slum Lords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).2. The detention order alongwith the grounds of detention, which are also dated 11-3-2000, was served on the detenue on 26-4-2000. Their true copies are annexed as annexures A & B respectively to the affidavit.3. The prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance of the impugned detention order are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure B). Their perusal shows that the impugned detention order is founded on one C.R., namely, C.R. No. 694 o...

Lloyds Steel Industries Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(183)ELT351(Bom)

ORDER1. Heard.2. Rule.3. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue is unable to place before us any provision to show that the petitioner is not entitled to utilise the CENVAT credit for payment of Central Excise duty on the clearance of final product.4. Our attention has been drawn to the notification dated 31st March, 2000, particularly to Rule 49(e)(i) and (ii), which read as under :'(e) If the manufacturer defaults on account of -(i) full payment of any one instalment is discharged beyond a period of thirty days from the date on which the instalment was due in a financial year, or(ii) the due date on which full payment of instalments is to be made is violated for the third time in a financial year, whether in succession or otherwise, then the manufacturer shall forfeit the facility to pay the dues in instalments under this sub-rule for a period of two months, starting from the date of communication of an order passed by the proper officer in this regard and during this period t...

M/S. Shreeram Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT621Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides, the main appeal itself was taken up for disposal after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.9,86,510/-.2. The appellants manufactured sugar. On 7.5.1991 some sugar stored in a bonded store room inside their factory was destroyed in fire. Part of the sugar was salvaged and was reprocessed after taking prior approval and permission of the departmental officers. On 26.11.1991 the assessees filed an application for remission of duty on sugar destroyed by fire in terms of rule 147 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the meanwhile, the department issued three show cause notices. The first was dated 1.10.1991 requiring the assessees to pay duty of Rs.8,67,085/- on the ground that the assessees had surreptitiously removed a quantity of sugar at the same time giving the excuse that the sugar was washed away by the water sprayed for controlling the fire.Two more show cause notices were issued dated 19.5.1992 and 28.8.1992 demanding duty of Rs.54,570...

M/S. National thermal Power Corp. Vs. Cc, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The representative of the appellant says that although clearance from the Committee of secretaries of the Cabinet Secretariat was asked for in 1996 (the appellant being a public sector undertaking), it has still not been received. He has no information at all as to whether it will be received, and if so, when.2. The appeal is therefor dismissed for want of requisite clearance.The appellant however is at liberty to seek revival of the appeal if and where such clearance is received....

M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Pune

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. An application has been filed for taking on record certain documents. The first document is the reply to the show cause notice which was inadvertently not placed on record earlier. The second is two affidavits filed by two officers of the appellant company. Shri Setalwad, learned senior counsel, clarified that the averments made in the affidavits were made before the respective authority during the earlier proceedings. The D R does not have serious objection.Application granted. Documents taken on record.2. When these stay applications were called out, Shri J.M. George, JDR, stated that the Revenue wanted to engage a senior counsel and requested for an adjournment. We find that there is a letter on record dated 10.11.2000 from the office of the Commissioner of Customs, Pune to that effect. We also find that thereafter on 12.12.2000 the bench had heard this matter and had directed the stay applications to be posted today, i.e. 12.2.2001, after hearing the prayer that the Revenue wan...

Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Vs. Webstar Trading Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for stay of operation of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order permitting the hazardous compound imported by the respondent, a trader, to be released on fine.2. Neither side disputes that goods are covered by the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989. Nor is it disputed that the respondent has not intimated as required to the appropriate authority of the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the import of these goods. In these circumstances, we think that the operation of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order requires stay on fine ordered by him, pending decision as to whether the release of the goods will or will not be contrary to law. The respondent is at liberty to seek out of turn hearing....

Cheerag Industrial and Management Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is a processor of fabrics. Notice was issued to it in 1990 alleging that it short paid the duty payable on such fabrics for the reason that it misdeclared the quality of the fabrics while processing. The notice alleged that the fabrics which the appellant declared to be "Spun x Spuri" were in fact "Spun x Tex" Counsel for the appellant explains that "Spun x Spun" refers to the kind of yarn used in the warp and weft of the fabrics, both being spun untextured yarn "Tex" refers to textured yarn. Thus, the notice alleged that the appellant declared that the fabrics which it subjected to processing did not contain textured yarn. The notice relied upon the statements of two of the persons who supplied the fabric to the appellant, Omprakash M. Shah and Ashwinkumar V. Shah. It relied, in regard to fabric sent by four other persons, Motiram Bulchand, KK Enterprises, Satish Silk Mills and Murli Textiles upon the fact that the challans under which the unprocessed fabrics were se...

Indian Institute of Bankers Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These cross-appeals pertain to the asst. yr. 1996-97. In the appeal by the Department, the decision of the CIT(A) accepting the assessee's claim that it is an educational institution and hence its income is exempt under Section 10(22) of the IT Act, is challenged and in the appeal by the assessee, objection is taken to the decision of the CIT(A), denying such exemption in respect of its income by way of dividend and interest.2. The appeals arise this way. The assessee is a company incorporated in 1928 under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It was allowed to omit the word "limited" from its name under Section 26 of the said Act, which is the forerunner of Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, since its objects were charitable. The principal objects of the assessee, as per its memorandum of association, are : (i) To encourage the study of the theory of banking and for that purpose to institute a scheme of examinations and to give certificates, scholarships and prizes. (ii) To promote...

Boi Finance Ltd. Vs. Liquidator of Siddhart Engg. Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom397; 2001(3)ALLMR750; 2001(4)BomCR151; (2001)3BOMLR294; (2000)3CompLJ167(Bom)

ORDERDr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Summons for judgment has been withdrawn as against Defendant No. 3 and consequently, it is pressed only as against Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4.2. An order has been passed on 24th November, 1998 in Company Petition No. 397 of 1993 by which the First Defendant has been ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator came to be appointed as a Liquidator with usual powers under the Companies Act, 1956. The Plaintiff has obtained leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, on 23rd March, 1999 in Company Application Lodging No. 251 of 1999. Pursuant thereto the Official Liquidator has been impleaded as the Fourth Defendant to the suit. The Official Liquidator has filed a Written Statement which is permitted to be read and treated as a reply to the Summons for Judgment.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 28th June, 1990, the Plaintiff placed an intercorporate deposit with the First Defendant which was repayable with interest at the...

Vasantrao Annasaheb Ubale and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR578; 2003(1)MhLj313

S.B. Mhase, J.1. All these petitions have been clubbed together because a common question as to interpretation of Sub-section (3) and (3A) of Section 27 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, as amended by Maharashtra Amendment Act No. XLI 2000 is involved, and therefore, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Writ Petition No. 4627 of 2000 sets out following facts which are relevant for interpretation of the said amending section.3. On 26th June, 1998 the respondent No. 5 was registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the first provisional managing committee was appointed with 224 promoter members. Thereafter in the first meeting held on 30-6-1999, a resolution was passed admitting 253 persons who were eligible and who have complied the requirements of the bye-laws to the membership of the respondent No. 5 society. The said resolution was forwarded to the Assistant Registrar, the respondent No. 2, for approval and ...