Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

Raj Shipping Agencies Vs. M.V. bunga Mas Tiga and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom451; 2002(1)ALLMR145; 2001(4)BomCR485; (2001)4BOMLR124; 2001(4)MhLj324

ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the first Defendant for rejection of the plaint, as the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the first Defendant or its owner.2. The facts that are material and relevant for the purpose of deciding this Notice of Motion are, according to the averments in the plaint, the Plaintiff is a partnership firm carrying on business in India. The first Defendant is a foreign flag vessel flying the flag of Malaysia. It is further averred that on the basis of two communications dated 22nd July, 1999 and 29th July, 1999 addressed by one M/s. North End Oil (Asia) Pvt. Ltd., to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs were called upon to effect supply of 80 M. T. diesel oil/bunkers and 10 M. T. diesel oil/bunkers to the first Defendant vessel. The port of delivery was specified as Mumbai and the delivery date was 23rd July, as regards 80 M. T. diesel oil/bunkers and 29th to 30th July. 1999 as regards the 10 M. T. diesel oil/bun...

Lloyds Finance Ltd. Vs. Emtex Industries (India) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]115CompCas560(Bom)

1. An Inter-Corporate Deposit in the amount of Rs. 2 crores was admittedly placed by the petitioner with the respondent by a cheque drawn bythe petitioner. On 24-11-1996 the respondent requested the petitioner to disburse the Inter-Corporate Loan in the amount of Rs. 2 crores. It has been stated in the company petition that in pursuance of the request, the petitioner under cover of a letter dated 25-11-1996 disbursed the amount of Rs. 2 crores for a period of 24 months repayable in full in one lump sum on 23-11-1998. Exh. B to the company petition which is a letter dated 25-11-1996 provides for the payment of interest at the rate of 28 per cent per annum payable quarterly. The amount of Rs. 2 crores was admittedly disbursed and again, it is common ground that the principal amount was repaid on 8-12-1998, Immediately thereafter, on 10-12-1998, a debit note claiming interest at, the rate of 28 per cent per annum compounded quarterly was issued to the petitioner by the respondent by which...

Nepc Airlines and ors. Vs. CaptaIn Yashoo Vijay Parmar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR143; 2002(1)BomCR398; [2001(90)FLR217]

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Central Government Labour Court No. II, Mumbai on 30-7-1998 in Application No. LC-2/44 of 1997 filed by the applicant employee, who is respondent No. 1 before me in the above writ petition. The respondent employee filed an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming wages for January, February and March 1997 at the rate of 40,800/- basic per month and allowances at the rate of Rs. 1,63,200/- per month. He has also claimed retrenchment compensation under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and Gratuity, Provident Fund, Leave Encashment, Medical Reimbursement with 18% interest per annum on the due amount. He has based his claim on the letter dated 19-12-1995 whereby he informed that his salary was increased with effect from 1-1-1996 to the above extent. According to the respondent employee his services were discontinued abruptly with immediate effect by a le...

National Textile Corporation (South Mah.) Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Agarwal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ909Bom

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioners N.T.C. (SM) Ltd. are a Government Company registered under Section 617 of the Companies Act and is a subsidiary of NTC Ltd., New Delhi. The Respondents are the employees of the erstwhile Elphinstone Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. It was one of the 13 mills the management of which was taken over and vested with the NTC, New Delhi as the custodian under the Ordinance No. 10 of 1983, which was replaced by the Textile Undertaking (Taking over of Management) Act, 1983. Petitioners were appointed as the additional' custodian for the aforesaid 13 Mills. The Respondents employees claim to continue in the employment of the petitioners even after the taking over of the management of the erstwhile company. It is an admitted fact that all of them were employed and working in the registered office of the company. The petitioners had disowned them and had denied the relationship of employer-employee. It would be relevant to mention at this stage itselfthat there wa...

Adam A. Sorathia and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR419

V.C. Daga, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 25th January, 1999 passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay in Chamber Summons No. 1577 of 1998 in L.C. Suit No. 1549 of 1995 whereby chamber summons was dismissed and prayer to join the applicants as party defendants to the suit was turned down.FACTS IN BRIEF 2. The facts giving rise to the present revision application, in nut shell, are as under :-The applicant No. 1 is the managing trustee of applicant No. 2 Trust, duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. Applicant No. 2 is the Owner of 'Sabri Chawl' in which respondent No. 2/original plaintiff is occupying shop No. 10 as sub-tenant of the applicants.3. The respondent No. 1, is the Bombay Municipal Corporation and, had issued notice dated 2nd January, 1995, under section 351 of the B.M.C. Act to the respondent No. 2 in respect of alleged illegal and unauthorised extension of the shop premises and thereafter passed order dated 1st March, 1996...

M/S. Nrc Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides, the main appeal was taken up for disposal on granting waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.33,873/- confirmed as duty on reversal of modvat credit and Rs.5,000/- imposed as penalty.2. The assessees took credit on air-conditioners falling under sub-heading 8415.00 and on fire extinguishers falling under sub-heading 8422.80. The credit was denied and penalty was imposed. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the appeal.3. Shri M.H. Patil, learned counsel, contends that the goods were essential for the operation of the assessee's unit but fairly concedes that in view of the stipulation in terms of rule 57Q these goods are barred from the benefit of this rule.4. It is the case of Shri Patil that the prohibition was brought into effect from 28.2.1999 vide amending notification 18/99-NT. The credit was taken shortly thereafter due to inadvertence and therefore imposition of penalty was not required.5. I find that neither authority has put forth the reas...

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Siemens Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC120

1. The appeal itself is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides.2. Siemens Limited, the respondent to this appeal, imported instruments as well as components for making instruments which were to be installed at the hot rolling and cold rolling mills to be supplied by it to Hindalco. It claimed assessment of these goods under heading 98.01 as a project import. One of the requirements for the concessional assessment under this heading is that the goods imported should be required for the initial setting up or substantial expansion of an existing unit of a specified industrial plant or other project specified therein.'Substantial expansion' is defined in the Project Import Regulations, 1986, which, by virtue of note 2 to Chapter 98, regulate classification under this heading, to mean 'an expansion which will increase the existing capacity by not less than 25%'. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the contention of the importer that the supply of components would increase the ins...

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M/S. Siltap Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The two appeals arise form the common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). These are therefore taken up together for disposal in this single order.2. The respondents imported certain goods which were used by them for manufacture of further goods. The claim for refund of duty paid on the inputs was found admissible but was directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund by the original authority on the observation that the incidence of duty had been passed on to the buyers. The Commissioner in the impugned order, following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of solar Pesticides vs. UOI 1992 (57) ELT 201, allowed the appeal. Hence the appeals 3. The strong point made by Shri Sarkar is that the Supreme Court had reversed the cited judgment of the Bombay High Court and that therefore the orders of the Assistant Commissioner would require to be restored.Shri M.H. Patil appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents are in position to show that the b...

Sitara Shipping Limited, S.S. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Gen),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of penalties imposed under Section 112 of the act of Rs.6 lakhs imposed on Sitara Shipping Limited (application 708/2001), Rs. 3 lakhs on Capt. S.S. Sahi, its Director (application 709/2000) and Rs. 1.5 lakhs on Mathurdas Narandas & Sons Forwarders Limited (application 1219/2000).2. We have heard the counsel for the applications and the departmental representative.3. Penalty has been imposed on the ground that the reefer containers imported by Sitara Shipping and Mathurdas Narandas & Sons Forwarders were not cleared in accordance with the terms of Section 47 of the Act.It is the common contention of counsel for each of the applicants that there was no such requirement in the case of import of containers made after they had once been imported and cleared on bills of entry and thereafter re-exported.There is, however, no evidence in support of the contention that the Custom House procedure set out in a public notice waives this requi...

M/S. Karsandas Mavji Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides, the appeal itself was taken up for disposal on granting waiving of pre-deposit of the unpaid portion of the duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 1,68,379/-.2. The appellant had exported "acid black-210" (S.O. dyes). This was re-imported for re-processing and for re-exporting. The goods were cleared on payment of the CVD. Credit of that duty was taken. The re-processed goods were exported under bond without payment of duty.The show cause notice dated 15.11.1996 made the following charge:- "2. The Modvat credit is deliberately availed by them in contravention of provisions of Rule 57A of C.Ex. Rules, 1944 as 'ACID BLACK 210' is their finished products and not an input and thereafter they contravened the provisions of Rule 57G of C.Ex. Rules, 1944 with intention to evade dischargement of duty on the finished products on account of willful mis-statement and suppression of facts." 3. The Assistant Commissioner in his order enlarged the scope of the notice and also ch...