Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. Indian Seamless Steels and Alloys Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002]112CompCas314(Bom)

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner company has prayed for the order under Sections433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, to wind up the respondent company allegingfailure on its part to pay off its debt which is said to be to the tune of Rs.1,12,15,08 inclusive of interest on the principal amount of Rs. 92,18,693 as set out inthe particulars of claim. 2. From the averments in the petition, the alleged debt appears to have arisenfrom the transactions between the parties in respect of the goods sold, supplied anddelivered by the petitioner company to the respondent company. It appears that, initially,the total amount for the goods sold was Rs. 1,77,12,303, on the basis of the invoices.Subsequently, it appears that the respondent company had returned the materialworth Rs. 79,00,589 for which the petitioner company issued a credit advice. Itfurther appears that the respondent company made payment from time to time to thepetitioners to the tune of Rs. 84,14,0121 reducing the balance to...

Mumbai Labour Union Vs. Indo French Time Industries Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)3BOMLR201; [2002]110CompCas408(Bom); [2001(91)FLR1194]; 2002(2)MhLj405

ORDER1. 'Bury the employer' is a rather unusual and ungrateful prayer made by the petitioner Union in the present petition for winding up of the respondent company, the employer of the employees under it. The union appears to be bent upon to prepare a coffin for ceremonious burial of the company in the interest of the other creditors at large. No serious efforts to revive the industrial activities of the company appear to have been made either by the Board of Directors or by the employees and the union. It is to the contrary that the Union is seeking to get the company finally wound up under sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Union has sought this relief (?) on the ground that the Company has failed and neglected and is unable to pay to the 77 employees their alleged claim computed by the Union in the particulars of claim (Exh. G) to the tune of Rs. 4,58,47,598-74 comprising of wages for December 1999, 30 days gratuity, 30 days compensation, leave wages, wages an...

Cipla Limited, Mumbai and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR75; (2002)1BOMLR62; 2002(2)MhLj631

S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. All the above petitions raise certain common issues of law and involve similar facts, hence we are disposing of the same by this common judgment. 2. In Writ Petition No. 1749 of 1999 Cipla Limited and Anr. v. Union of India, and Ors. the brief facts and submissions are as under :-- 3. The First Petitioner Company is a domestic pharmaceutical company which manufactures and sells various pharmaceutical bulk drugs and formulations. The present petition is filed challenging :-- (a) The totally arbitrary, unjustified and mala fide refusal by the Respondents to issue the exemption notification to the petitioners to which they are entitled, and which has already been directed to be issued exempting Salbutamol and its formulations manufactured by the firstPetitioners from the ambit of price control in view of the new process developed by the petitioners by virtue of its indigenous R & D, and in view of Drugs (Price Control) Order of 1987 providing for such an exemption,...

Wilberg Peter Torbjorn FlorentIn Vs. Inspector of Customs, Mumbai and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj123

S.S. Parkar, J.1. All the above appeals arise against the judgment and order dated 22-4-1996 delivered by the Special Judge in NDPS Special Case No. 107 of 1994. In all four accused were prosecuted for the offences of possession and conspiracy in respect of the narcotic drugs which were seized from the accused. Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 1996 is filed by original accused No. 1 against the order of his conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court under the provisions of the NDPS Act and the Customs Act. Criminal Appeal No. 441 of 1996 is filed by original accused Nos. 3 and 4 against the order of their conviction and sentences recorded against them under NDPS Act. Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 1996 is filed by the original complainant against the acquittal of accused No. 1 in respect of the first seizure of 30 grams of heroin from hispossession. Since all the appeals arise in respect of the same prosecution against all the appellants in Special Case No. 107 of 1996 which was dispose...

Rajeshkumar Babulal Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002CriLJ1162

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri Arfan Salt for the Appellant and Shri Pravin Singhal for the prosecution. Both of them have been heard in contexts with the judgment assailed, and the evidence on record referred to.2. Prosecution case in brief is that P. W. Subhash Dinkar Kumbhar. G. C. Pandey, J. D. Doke, N. L. Shlnde. Laxman Gate and Jayant Pandey were present in the Lottery Shop, situated at Princes Street, Mumbai, owned by Pankaj Mohanlal Mehta on 24th February, 1997 at about 9 a.m. The prosecution alleged that Appellant with other co-accused visited said shop armed with different weapons. Out of them, as per prosecution case, the present Appellant was possessing a chopper. Prosecution alleged that, the present Appellant and other co-accused, robbed those prosecution witnesses of the wrist watches which they were wearing on their wrists and took away sum of Rs. 28,000/- and some lottery tickets, by threatening those persons of assault by using the weapons named above. A report was submitted ...

B.R. Thadani Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR263

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The applicants have taken out the above company application praying for a direction to implead the applicant as party respondent to the company application No. 557 of 2000. In support of the Judges' summons, the applicant has filed an affidavit wherein it appears that the respondents have filed a claim application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai seeking to recover from the official liquidator and the applicants jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 8,20,76,369.27 with interest thereon. According to the first respondent, this was the amount due and payable by the company in liquidation to them. It appears that the official liquidator by his notice of admission of proof dated 14-8-2000 has allowed the applicants claim for the sum of Rs. 4,36,35,454 and since the first respondents having already received an amount of Rs. 3,62,91,150 out of the sale proceeds of the assets of Waterworks Engg. Ltd., a balance amount of Rs. 73,43,304 was payable to the applican...

Bennet Coleman and Co. Ltd. Vs. Rsa Fox Advertising Private Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]107CompCas133(Bom)

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners have prayed for an order of winding up of the respondent-company under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging that the respondents have failed and neglected to pay the debt to the tune of Rs. 7,56,205 arising from the business transaction between them. From the averments in the petition it appears that the claim is based on the orders placed by the respondent-company with the petitioners for releasing certain advertisements in their publication from time to time. All such release orders appeared in exhibit B (page 17 of the paper book). It appears that the respondents are advertising agents for advertisements on behalf of their customers in various publications of the petitioners-company. According to the petitioners, the respondents have failed to make payment to the petitioners for certain release orders. The petitioners therefore issued statutory notice under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, calling upon the respon...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The assessee manufactures tractors. Certain chemicals used for the purpose of phosphating and also for the surface treatment before phosphating were held inadmissible for the purpose of modvat credit by the Assistant Collector. In appeal, relying upon the Tribunal judgement in the case of Wheels India Ltd. Vs. CCE 1994 (51) ECR 301, the Commissioner (Appeals) held such inputs a admissible vide his order No.PKS-41/B.II/96 dated 15/04/1996. Against this order the Revenue have filed the present appeal.2. The same assessee was using pens for colour coding of the various components to ensure that the correct components went into the correct final product. The Assistant Collector denied credit taken on such pens. The Commissioner(Appeals) vide his order No. PKS-40/B.II/96 dated 15/04/1996 allowed the assessee's appeal. He held that pens used for such marking were in fact used in relation to the manufacture of the final products. In holding so he upon the Tribunals' order in the case of C...

Batliboi Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1227Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The assessee availed of the Scheme of modvat and filed declaration, in term of Rule 57G showing description of the final products and the description of the inputs. Same inputs were declared as "other electrical" showing the Chapter hading as 85. In terms of this declaration the assessee took modvat credit and utilised the same for payment of duty on the final products. They, however, maintained detailed index cards showing the description of each items covered under this general description. The detailed description was shown in the RG-23A Part-I register also on receipt of the physical inputs.Extract of these was also appended to the RT-12 returns filed every months. These returns were duly assessed.2. On 13/10/1993 show cause notice was issued covering the period December, 1988 to April, 1989 alleging that modvat credit taken on the inputs was deniable in view of the inadequate declaration thereof. The show cause notice alleged mis-declaration and suppression the part of the ass...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Mehul Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Respondent availed of modvat credit on the strength of endorsed bill of entry. Show cause notice was issued seeking denial of the credit taken on the ground that the purchases were not made on the basis of high seas sale. The Dy. Commissioner denied the modvat credit and confirmed the recovery of Rs. 70,697/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of CCE Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. (26) ELT 57 allowed the appeal. Hence the appeal from the Revenue.2. In the grounds of appeal it is claimed that the Government have stipulated an endorsed bill of entry as modvatable document only in the case of high seas sale. On this ground prayer is made for setting aside the impugned order.3. In a number of judgments the Tribunal has held that endorsed bill of entry is a modvatable document. Some of these judgments are listed below: 4. The Tribunal in holding so has not distinguished the buyers who have purchased on high seas sale basis and the buyers who...