Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

In Re: Nilesh Lalit Parekh

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR443; 2002(1)BomCR357; 2002(1)MhLj785

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This appeal is preferred by a creditor of M/s Enarai Finance Limited of which the respondent is the Managing Director. In the appellant's petition for winding up, consent terms dated 23-5-1998, were recorded and an order was made in terms thereof. Upon the company admitting its liability and agreeing to pay certain instalments, the respondent, who was the Managing Director of the company, agreed to an order guaranteeing the payment of the amounts due. He further agreed for the performance of the consent terms. Upon failure of the company to make payment in accordance with the order of the Company Court recording the consent terms, the appellant applied to this Court on 15-4-1999 for issue of an insolvency notice the respondent. Upon the Insolvency Registrar raising an objection to the issue of insolvency notice, the appellant applied on 11-6-1999 to the learned single Judge of this Court, who rejected the application and upheld the objections of the Insolvency Registra...

Kanaiyalal Prabhudas Maru and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commiss ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(91)FLR914]; (2002)ILLJ297Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioners seek to challenge a warrant of arrest which was issued on June 25, 2001 against the Second Petitioner. In pursuance of the warrant of arrest, the Second Petitioner was detained in civil prison for a period of 9 days until July 3, 2001. On the Petition being moved for urgent orders on July 3, 2001, this Court granted ad interim relief directing the authorities to release the Second Petitioner from detention. The Petitioners stated that they were ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 lac with the Respondent authorities towards the out-standing Provident Fund dues forthwith and that statement was recorded. The amount, the Court is informed, has been deposited. The short question which arises is whether the arrest of the Second Petitioner was in accordance with the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 'E. P. F. Act, 1952').2. The Four...

Ashok Keshavrao Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR595; 2002(1)BomCR193

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks a mandamus to the following effect.'To direct the respondent No. 3 bank to take necessary action immediately under sections 25-A and 35 of the Act as well by laws of the bank on the basis of the decision of District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ahmednagar dated 8-12-2000.'2. The brief facts, not in dispute, could be stated as under :---The respondent No. 3 bank came to be registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, referred to as 'the said Act') on 8-4-1996, with its area of operation of 10 Kms around Jamkhed town and at that time Shri Dilip Chandmal Bafana (present respondent No. 23) was the Chief Promoter. The ad-hoc board i.e. Board of Promoters was required to be replaced by the elected Managing Committee and because the Board of Promoters failed to take appropriate steps within the stipulated time, the District Deputy Re...

Purshottam S/O Manohar Kamone Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR786; 2001(4)BomCR633

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Shri Mujumdar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service for the respondents. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, Rule is called out for hearing at this stage and is finally disposed of.2. The writ petition is in the nature of public interest litigation. The petitioner claims to be social worker and affiliated to several social organisations working for the welfare of the general public. His grievance is that Nagpur is one of the important cities in the State of Maharashtra and the principal city of Vidarbha region, which also holds winter session of State Legislature. The population of the city is about 25 lacs. The petitioner has averred that considering the scale of population, there is tremendous workload on the courts working at Nagpur and the ratio of disposal of cases in comparison with new cases is very low and, therefore, the rate of pendency is reaching catastrophic proportion. As on 31-3-1999, there w...

Veena Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(134)ELT350(Bom)

ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. The Petitioner No. 1 is the manufacturer of domestic electric flour mills. It is fitted with electric meter. After the show cause notice and hearing the Petitioners the demand was made for the Central Excise Duty. The said demand came to be confirmed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Mum-bai-I, by order dated 12-10-1998 in the following terms :-'I confirm the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 67,52,038/-(Rs. sixty seven lakhs fifty two thousand and thirty eight only) Rs. 60,59,152/- BED and Rs. 6,92,886/- SED) against SCN No. V/PI/15-16 dtd. 6-6-1994 in respect of M/s. Veena Industries Bombay, under Section 11A(2) Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 which shall be paid forthwith.I also impose a penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rs. fifty lakhs only) on M/s. Veena Industries, Bombay under Rule 173Q (1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.I order confiscation of land, building, plant, machinery etc. used in connection with ...

York Refrigeration India Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT135Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs 10.78 lakhs, penalty totalling Rs 11.28 lakhs and fine of Rs 10.00 lakhs for redemption of the plant ordered to be confiscated, by York Refrigeration India Ltd and penalty under Rule 209A of Rs 1.00 lakh on Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed on the ground that York Refrigeration India Ltd manufactured at the factory of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages a brine chilling plant and did not pay the duty under Heading 8418.10 of the tariff dealing with the refrigeration machinery and plant.4. On merits, whether the plant in question was movable or not requires detailed examination. The counsel for the applicant however contends that on the assumption that is liable to, it would be entitled to the benefit of exemption under notification 67/95 has, at this stage, to be accepted. The Commissioner, in his order, does not deny that the terms of the exemption contained in the notification woul...

M/S Bombay Dying Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application we find the issue to be covered and take up the appeal for final disposal, on granting waiver of predeposit as prayed for.2. The appellants had filed a price list in proforma-1 which was duly approved by the proper officer. They also filed price list in proforma-II for gods sold on contract basis where the prices were lower than the prices quoted in the proforma-I price list. The original and the appellate authorities held that when the proforma-I prices were current price list in proforma-II could not be filed, and confirmed the differential duty.3. There is nothing in Section 4 to give rise to the belief of the Commissioner. This issue has been fully covered in Tribunals judgment in the case of Synpro Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore [2001 (130) ELT 211. Following the ratio of this judgment the appeal is allowed....

M/S Ate Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants are not present but have stated the grounds for seeking restoration. We therefore take up the application for disposal.2. The appeal filed by the applicants was dismissed vide order No.C-II/1576/WZB/dt. 16.7.98 for failure of the applicants to comply with the directions made for predeposits vide earlier Order dt. 27.4.98. The claim made in the restoration application is that on 27.6.98 they had debited their RG 23A Part-II register with the sum directed by the Tribunal. The photocopy of the register in compliance was sent to the Tribunal and was receipted on 1.7.98. It appears that this was not placed before this Bench resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. On seeing the fact as brought above, we grant the application and restore the appeal to its original number....

M/S Lalit Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC734

1. By our order No. C-II/1218-27/WZB/2001 dt. 28.4.2001 which was heard on 9^th April, 2001, we have directed the M/s. Lalit Products to deposit the entire duty within two months from receipt of this order.The said order was despatched on 11.5.2001 some of the applicants were represented by Shri M H Patil Advocate. The present applicant was not represented by any person.2. On 16^th July 2001 an application has been filed seeking for reconsideration and modification of our earlier order. Today Shri Lalit P. Deshlahra pleads before us that late Mr. B.N. Rangawani, was entrusted with the job and after the demise of Shri B.N. Rangawani, the matter has been entrusted with interested Shri M.H. Patil Advocate. He therefore pleads some more time for arguing the present application namely E/MA (Modfn.)-566/2001-Mum. We have considered this request.When we made the earlier order, we have found that no financial difficulties had been pleaded. Therefore we were not inclined to agree to the reques...

M/S Radhey Shyam Ratanlal and Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sheva,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT107Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two sets of application filed by two importers have common facts. One set of application is for waiver of predeposit of penalties imposed. The other set of application seeks early hearing of the appeal. Since the facts are common. These applications are begin disposed of vide this common order.2. The appellants imported poppy seed in terms of contracts earlier entered into at the FOB value of US$ 850 PMT. Initially in case of both importers value was enhanced by the Customs to US% 1200 PMT. M/s. Ajay Exports cleared the goods on payment of duty at the enhanced valuation under protest. M/s. Radhey Shyam Ratanlal had filed six bills of entry.In the case of two bills of entry, they cleared goods on payment of enhanced duty under protest and in the case of 4 bills of entry; the clearance was effected on filing o bank guarantees.3. Both importers then filed petitions before the High Court in disposal, the High Court directed the Commissioner to issue show cause notices and to pass...