Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

V. Ramanathan Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR401; 2001(4)BomCR441; (2001)4BOMLR722; [2002(92)FLR265]; 2001(4)MhLj448

ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.1. The petition is filed by the petitioner claiming to be the General Secretary of his Union viz., Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha, Mumbai. He claims to have been authorised to file this petition on behalf of the two employees of the respondent Company. It was the petitioner himself who had filed an application under Section 50 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 on behalf of the two employees viz., Shri K. N. Nagesha Rao and Shri Shamnandan Pande who appear to have authorised the petitioner to present the said application before the Industrial Court to pray for a recovery certificate against the respondent Company to receive the money on behalf of the aforesaid two employees. The petitioner has prayed for a certificate for Rs. 1,56,901 /- for Shri Pande and for Rs. 1,55,961 /- for Shri Rao as money due and payable by the respondent Company to the aforesaid employees, who appeared to have been retired and who are not presently in Mumbai within the jurisdiction of th...

H.Q. Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Care Formulators Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR465; 2001(4)BomCR446; (2001)4BOMLR791; [2001]107CompCas126(Bom); 2001(4)MhLj451

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. On the plea and averments made in the petition, that in spite of repeated demands the respondent Company has failed and neglected to pay to the petitioners to complete the outstanding debt to the tune of U. S. S 73,738,06 equivalent to Indian Rupees 32,07,605.60 with interest thereon, the petitioners have prayed for an order of winding up of the respondent Company and appointment of Official Liquidator under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had entered into a contract with the respondent Company for supply of 100 Kg. of 2.3- Dideoxycyrtidine (hereafter referred to as chemicals) by the Respondent Company to the petitioners for a sum of U. S. S 560,000/-. Pursuant to the said contract certain transactions and dealings took place between the parties, the details of which are not material for our purpose. According to the petitioners, the respondents did not honour the commitment of supply of the afores...

General Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Nandlal Engineering Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR311; 2002(1)BomCR619; 2002(1)MhLj183

1. The Petition is directed against the impugned award dated 20th May, 1977 (Annexure H) passed by the Joint Arbitrators appointed by both the parties under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('Act' for short).FACTS-IN-DETAIL 2. The facts in detail, necessary to appreciate the rival contentions, may be stated :--The petitioners herein are the Government Company established under section 9 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 having its registered Office at 170-J, Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020 ('the petitioner' for short).3. The respondents are a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, carrying on business as Civil Contractors having their registered Office at 10 Hamal Wadi, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400 002.4. The petitioner had floated a tender for civil works for it proposed office interiors. The respondent made a bid and after certain deliberations and negotiations and the same was finalised. The petitioner vide its lett...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Balasaheb @ Ramesh Laxman Deshmukh

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)MhLj148

1. By this revision, the State, which is complainant in Regular Criminal Case No. 97/96, State v. Rajiv Deshmukh and Ors. on the file of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Chalisgaon, challenges legality,propriety and correctness of the order passed by learned Magistrate below Exhibit 190 on 5-9-2000.By the impugned order, it is held that witness Balasaheb @ Ramesh Laxman Deshmukh respondent is entitled to protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and the prosecution is, therefore, directed not to examine him as a witness in the said case.2. The incident in question took place on 26-4-1996 between 00-30 to 01-30 hours i.e. after just past midnight, on the night between 25th and 26th April, 1996. On Chalisgaon Dhule Road, there is a hotel run in the name and style 'Hotel Rani Park'. Complainant Charudatta Nanabhau Pawar was sitting in the northern part of the campus of said hotel. It is the prosecution story that PW Balasaheb @ Ramesh Laxman Deshmukh had invited him th...

Facrunissa Bi @ Cairunissa Bi Vs. Shaikh Sadi Shaikh SarfuddIn and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)BomCR378

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.2. Heard both sides. 3. This Court, while issuing notice on this petition on 15th March, 2001 had indicated that the matter will be finally disposed of at the admission stage. In the circumstances, by consent of both the sides, the matter is heard forthwith. None appears for the respondent No. 3 though served. 4. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Mapusa, dated December 26, 2000 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 21/2000.5. Briefly stated, the respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit before the Court of Civil Judge, J.D., Sattari at Valpoi bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 1/1999 praying for injunction against the petitioners and respondent No. 3 herein. In substance, the relief was to restrain the petitioners from transferring, alienating, selling, entering into, mortgaging or creating any charge or lien on the suit property and the building constructed therein and any shops, flats,...

M/S. Choudhary International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications are for waive of predeposit of the penalties imposed upon the two appellants. The Commissioner in the common impugned order held that there were three declarations of the export price of garment. He has therefore directed restriction of the drawback amount. The applicants have placed on record substantial correspondence and details of the Export Promotion Scheme. The claim is made that there are different schemes and therefore different values declared by the exporter for apparently similar goods are also justifiable. This is an interesting argument, which prima facie has merit. Therefore we allow the applications and waive the predeposit of the penalties and stay the recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal....

Comissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Blast Carboblocks

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal filed by revenue was rejected on a number of grounds. The Commissioner has now applied for restoration of the appeal. On the required documents being presented, the appeal is restored to its original number....

United Phosphorous Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner (Appeal) has confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner that the applicant is liable to pay duty non-levied of Rs 4,30,22,276.18, and imposing on it an equal amount of penalty, on the ground that the technical grade pesticides manufactured by it are required to be classified under heading 29.42 of the Central Excise tariff.2. In his order, the Deputy Commissioner has held that as the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Pesticides Mfrs and Formulators Association of Indian 2000 (115) ELT 324, he did not feel bound by it.3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the stay of a judgement does not result in that judgement being extinguished or wiped out; he cites in support the judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Koduru Venkata Reddy vs Land Acquisition Officer and R.D.O., Kovali 1987 (67) STC 424.4. In this judgement, the High Court said, "We are of the view that when a judgement of the High ...

Lubrizol India Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the valuation, for purposes of assessment, of two products, described as extreme pressure additive no. 156.00 and 156.10 manufactured by the appellant at its factory at Taloja, and cleared to its other factory at Turbhe for utilisation in the manufacture of chemical pesticides. The value of such goods is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6(b) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rule, 1975. The department was not satisfied about the correctness of the value which the appellant adopted for assessing the duty. It therefore proposed to add this value, profit margin at 9.9% and administrative overheads at 2.2%.The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice and also imposed a penalty. His order having been confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is before us.2. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that there are no clearances for home consumption of these goods,...

M/S. Wockhardt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(123)ELT630Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants manufactured Medicaments. They were earlier availing of the credit facility under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In 1986 they switched over to the modvat credit systme. On 15.9.87 an order was made by the jurisdictional Superintendent directing them to reverse modvat credit without specifying the amount but specifying the three grounds. The first was that the inputs were not declared for the final products Brexic, Respimax Capsules. The second was that in the case of certain inputs namely Analgon 2T and Paracetamol, the final products were not declared. The third ground was that they had taken credit on Gelatin Capsules which were used for manufacture of medicaments by another manufacturer, which medicaments had been later received by the present appellants, were repacked and were cleared on payment of duty. Against this order assessee went in appel. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the directions contained in three letters and directed denovo considera...