Mumbai Court October 2002 Judgments

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. R.S. Avtar Singh and Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR219(Bom); 2003(2)MhLj29

ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit. By consent of counsel, the Arbitration Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal and is heard. The learned counsel for the respondent waives service.2. These proceedings have been initiated under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. A declaration has been sought by the petitioner that an arbitration agreement contained in Clause 25 of the contract that was entered into between the parties has ceased to exist or that it has perished due to a final settlement, accord and satisfaction between the parties in pursuance whereof the respondents were paid an amount of Rs. 28.95 lacs in full and final settlement of their claims. Consequential declaratory reliefs have been prayed for in these proceedings.3. The dispute between the parties arises out of a contract for the construction of an Institute of Engineering and Ocean Technology that was awarded by the petitioner to the respondent in the year 1986. The value of the contract was Rs. 2.29 Cror...

United Liner Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Cus ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR516; 2003(90)ECC95; 2003(156)ELT835(Bom); 2003(3)MhLj243

J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. The short issue raised in this petition is whether the Customs Authorities are justified in levying penalty upon the local agents in India under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the alleged breach of Bills of Lading Act, 1855 committed by the principal in a foreign country? 2. The facts relevant for the present petition are as follows :-- 3. At the material time, the petitioners were local agents in Mumbai for M/s Equitable Transporter International, Inc. ('ETI' for short), who were freight forwarders at Taipai, Taiwan. M/s American President Lines were the owners of the vessel M/s 'M. V. Macalu' whose local agents in Mumbai were Forbes Forbes Cambell and Co. Ltd. 4. M/s Crystalline Corporation, an Indian importer had placed an order for supply of components of umbrella with a foreign supplier situated at Taiwan. The foreign supplier handed over the consignment to Freight Forwarders namely E.T.I. On receipt of the goods, the E.T.I. as freight forwarders ...

Nishigandh Sahaniwas Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. Mr. Vith ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj82

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. The petition under Article 227 takes exception to the order passed by the Co-operative Court No. 1 Bombay dated 19.4.2001 below Application dated 1.3.2001 and dated 23.4.2001. Briefly stated S.R. Saudagar/Respondent No. 2 instituted dispute under Section 91 against the petitioner society being case C.C.1/73/90 (CC II/374/80). In that dispute Respondent No. 2 filed an application dated 1.3.2001 for permission to withdraw the dispute. That application was opposed by Respondent No. 1 contending that he has acquired interest in the suit property and, therefore, the should be joined as party to the dispute and be permitted to pursue the remedy claimed in the dispute. Notably, Respondent No. 1 is one of the son of Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 took that stand on the premise that the suit property originally belonged to Respondent No. 1's father Ramnath viz. husband of Respondent No. 2. After his demise in the year 1983 the suit property was transferred in the name ...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2003)DMC358

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. This is an appeal against the acquittal filed by the State. All the accused - respondents were prosecuted for offence under Sections 306 read with 34, 498 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 131 of 1986.2. The facts giving rise to the case of the prosecution were as under:Deceased Mina was married to accused Kamalakar at Ahmednagar on 27.4.1982. She was ill-treated on account of non-payment of sufficient dowry and also because she was black in complexion, she was beaten, driven out of the house. The marriage had taken place due to intervention of Vimlabai who was the maternal aunt of Mina and who was also living in the said village where the accused used to live. Mina used to complain to maternal' aunt about the ill-treatment given by the accused. Vimlabai therefore, intervened and asked the accused No. 3 mother-in-law to treat Mina properly. Mina went to her parents, stayed there for 6-7 months, when she was brought...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Paras Trading Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order under consideration, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the appellant that a show cause notice was not issued to it and allowed the appeal. The application seeks to contend that there is a mistake in this order, in that the show cause notice was in fact served on the appellant.2. The Tribunal had in its order noted the inability of the departmental representative to produce despite on opportunity given to him, evidence of service of the notice on the appellant. The application relies upon an acknowledgement of service of the notice dated 1.12.1995 which is present in the Commissioner's records. At the last hearing, it was brought to our notice by the counsel who earlier represented the appellant that the notice was in fact served on Alka Shah, who was the neighbour of the appellant and this service on her would not constitute service on the appellant. The departmental representative then sought time. Today, he produces a statement of Alka Shah recorded by the depa...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shiv Marine Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT130Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Shiv Marine Indus tries Pvt. Ltd. contracted for purchase of a Ship at the cost of US $ 801049.69 as per the memorandum dated 1-6-1999. Several addenda were issued between the sellers and the buyers changing the date of L.C. and also amending he description of the vessel. Vide addendum No. 3, dated 2-6-99, the value was reduced to US $ 7,87,268.2 the ground was given as "Misdescription of Double Bottom Tanks". Bill of Entry was filed on 10-6-99 showing the reduced valuation. The assessment was provisionally done. The Dy. Commissioner finalised the assessment. He observed that the post import reduction was not permissible and finalised the assessment at the initial value.Against this judgment the importers filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed orders in which the issue of valuation was not covered but later is sued an addendum wherein he accepted the reduction in value. He termed the addendum as establishing transaction value.Against this order the Revenue have fil...

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Marg Marketing and Research Group

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)87ITD662(Mum.)

1. The only grievance projected by the Revenue in this appeal is that the learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,62,913 made by the Assessing Officer on account of the fact that the assessee had not accounted for the total amount of bills raised during the year as income.2. Marg Marketing & Research Group Ltd., was set up in 1983, by a group of Market research professionals who are regarded as pioneers in the field in our country and the company has been specializing in market research on various products and its main activity comprises of Market Research, Market Study, Market Survey etc. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had switched over to cash basis of accounting in the assessment year 1988-89 and in the assessment year 1989-90 (under appeal), it had again switched over to Mercantile system of accounting.The total amount of research and consultancy receipts credited during this year a...

Twinstar Holdings Ltd. Vs. Anand Kedia, Deputy Cit and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR56; (2003)2BOMLR184; [2003]260ITR6(Bom); 2003(2)MhLj963

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge, inter alia, notices dated July 14, 2002, July 15, 2002 and July 15, 2002, being exhibit J. 1 to exhibit J. 3 issued under Section 226(5) read with the Third Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, under which the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax--respondent No. 1, has prohibited Twinstar Holdings Limited--petitioners from receiving shares mentioned in the impugned notices. By the said notices, the depository participant is also restrained from delivering the impugned shares to any person(s).Facts :2. The petitioner-Twinstar Holdings Limited, is a Mauritius based company, being an overseas corporate body, registered under the Mauritius Companies Act, 1984. The petitioner was the holder of 100 per cent. shares of three investment companies, viz., Pravin Navin Investment and Trading Company (hereinafter referred to as 'PNIT'); Dwarkaprasad Anilkumar Investment Private Limited ...

Ethnor Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Bom)550; [2003]260ITR401(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. All these four income-tax references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment, as common issues are involved in all these references.2. The questions raised in each of the references are as follows :The questions raised at the instance of the assessee.3. I. T. R. No. 170 of 1987 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the surtax payable by the assessee was not deductible in computing the assessee's income under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' ? 2. (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 8,61,010 incurred by the assessee on what has termed a 'sales, literature and miscellaneous promotional aids' was expenditure on advertisement, publicity and sales promotion and as such includible for disallowance under Sub-sect...

Environsare Foundation Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Secretary and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR519

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. These two petitions seek to challenge the legality and propriety of a pipeline of a distance of about 8.5 k.m. set up by respondent No. 8 Indian Oil Tanking Limited (I.D.T.L.) for carrying Naphtha-a hazardous substance-from a tap-off point (on an existing pipeline of O.N.G.C.) at Virag within the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (J.N.P.T.) area to Navghar, where the storage terminal of respondent No. 8 is situated. The principal grievance in both the petitions is that the pipeline affects the mangroves in that area, which falls in the Coastal Regulation Zone (C.R.Z.) and is set up in violation of the provisions of the Central Government Notification dated 19th February, 1991 governing the C.R.Z. The petition seek a declaration that the environmental clearance to this pipeline granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (M.O.E.F.) of the Union of India respondent No. 1 on 20th December, 2001 is illegal. Consequently, the petitions seek an order that the pipeline be d...