Mumbai Court March 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mahalaxmi Gems Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC58Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the acceptability of the value declared by the appellant of rough diamonds imported by it. Out of three lots that it imported, the value declared for one was accepted. The department was of the view that the value declared for the other two was excessive and proposed confiscation under Clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act. The goods were unconditionally exempted from duty by Notification 36/93. The importer waived issue of notice. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has reduced the value of the goods from the declared value of totalling Rs. 66,83,862/- to Rs. 32,40,540/- ordering the goods to be confiscated under Clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act but permitted them to be exported on payment of Rs. 5 lakhs. He also imposed a penalty on the appellant of Rs. 25 lakhs.2. The basis for the enhancement of the value ordered by the Commissioner is the opinion of the appraising officers of the custom house and the opinion...
Indian Commercial Co. Ltd. Vs. Amrish Kilachand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom391; 2002(3)ALLMR395; 2003(1)ARBLR10(Bom); 2002(4)BomCR635
ORDERS.A. Bobde, J.1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by Amrish Kilachand, defendant No. 1, who claims to have been in possession of the premises at Oriental House 7, Jamshedjee Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020. This Chamber Summons is taken out under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the execution levied by the plaintiff i.e. Indian Commercial Company Ltd. be dismissed and the warrants of attachment dated 8-3-2001 and 9-8-2001 on the movable property specified in the prayer in possession of the third party be raised and/or set aside.2. The dispute between Amrish Kilachand, defendant No. 1, and the plaintiff, Indian Commercial Company Ltd. is mainly in relation to the premises referred to above, hereinafter referred to as the premises in question'. Amrish Kilachand and the company which is said to be under his control i.e. Indian Speciality Chemicals Company (India) Private Ltd. claim to have been in possession of the premises in question tion under two lett...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Dabhol Power Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: 2006(199)ELT782(Bom)
1. Heard Shri Sorabji, learned Attorney General for the petitioner and Shri Shreedharan, learned Counsel for the Respondents.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by CEGAT on 28th December, 2001 under the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 which was passed in appeal preferred by the respondent against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, dated 12th November, 2001. The impugned order has permitted the appeal of the respondent to be entertained without the pre-deposit of the amount of duty of over Rs. 275 Crores and penalty of Rs. 45 Crores.3. The short facts leading to this petition are as under:(a) Last year, i.e. on 31st July, 2001, the Customs department issued to the respondent - Dabhol Power Company (DPC) a show cause notice, demanding amongst others Rs. 316,36,15,295 (283,39,45,406 + 920,57,184 + 23,76,12,705) as duty for imports made for its Liquidated Natural Gas (LNG) terminal at Dabhol. In adjudication, the Commissioner of Customs by his orde...
Mafatlal Securities Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Birla Sun-life Securities Ltd. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR745; 2002(3)BomCR771; (2002)3BOMLR760; 2002(3)MhLj116; [2003]44SCL58(Bom)
J.A. Patil, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act 1996, for short), for setting aside the Award made by the Sole Arbitrator on 30-3-2000. The petitioner is a member of the National Stock Exchange Ltd., (NSE). On 6-4-1998, the petitioner purchased from M/s ION Exchange Finance Ltd.. (IEFL), the securities viz., 12.50% Government of India Stock (GOI) 2004, bearing Stock Certificate No. MS 97 of aggregate face value of Rs. 21.45 lacs for settlement on 13-4-1998. The petitioner issued a cheque dated 10-4-1998 for Rs. 22,49,985.83/- in favour of IEFL towards the purchase of the said securities. The said securities appeared to have originated from M/s Premier Capital Market Services Ltd., having their office at Chennai, who were the original owners of the said securities. The securities were forwarded to the petitioner along with the blank transfer form. According to the petitioner in the usual course of business, acting as intermedi...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Streamline Shipping C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom420; 2002(3)ALLMR404; 2002(4)BomCR706; (2002)4BOMLR1; 2002(3)MhLj530
ORDERA. P. Shah, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge by which interim injunction has been issued in petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', restraining the appellant Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) from acting on the notice of termination dated 16-10-2001. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal and indicating the points for decision herein are now stated.2. On 19-2-1999 the appellant floated a tender for manning, running, operating, repairing and maintenance on hire of three vessels under Group IX i.e. Samudrika 2, Samudrika 7 and Sindhu 9. The respondent was one of the tenderers. On 30-12-1999 a contract was signed between the appellant and respondent for vessel Samudrika 2 for the primary term of 2 and half years from 9-12-1999. Clause 1.10.1 of the agreement provided that the duration of the contract shall be for the period of 2 and half years (30 months) wit...
islamic Investment Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR685; (2003)1BOMLR583; (2002)176CTR(Bom)46; [2004]254ITR265(Bom); 2002(3)MhLj555
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the Respondents, the Food Corporation of India against whom an Award was passed by the Arbitrator on 21st January, 1996. The Award was made into a rule of the Court and a Decree was passed in terms thereof on 8th March, 2000. Under the Decree a total amount payable towards principal was Rs. 7,99,067.16. The total decretal amount along with interest on principal at the rate of 10% per annum from 7th February, 1989 to 8th March, 2000 including cost of Rs. 4,165.50 was in the sum of Rs. 16,89,430.66. The interest on the above principal sum of Rs. 7,99,067.16 for the period from 7th February, 1989 to 8th March, 2000 at the rate of 10% p.a. was Rs. 8,86,198/-. As per further interest on the above principal from 9th March, 2000 to 31st December, 2001 at the rate of 10% p.a. was in the sum of Rs. 1,45,145.62. Thus the total interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the above principal from 7th February, 1989 to 31st December. 2001 came to Rs. 10...
Bdh Industries Ltd. Vs. Croydon Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR61; 2002(4)BomCR5
ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. This is a petition under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short the Act 1958), challenging the order dated 29-12-1995 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Mark in the matter of application No. 408108 in Clause 5, rejecting the petitioners application for registration of trade mark 'PV-DINE' and allowing the opposition of respondent No. 1, who has the registration of the trade mark 'PIODIN'.2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on the business of the manufacturing and selling drug and pharmaceuticals falling in Class 5. Respondent No. 1 is also a company similarly registered and carrying the business of selling pharmaceuticals. On 18th July, 1983 the petitioner applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks at Mumbai for registration of the trade mark 'P.V. DINE' in class 5 in respect of 'Medicinal and Pharmaceutical preparations for human use,' it appears that the Trade Mark Registrar raised ce...
Ananda Dattatraya Patankar Vs. Kishore Narayan Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR565
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. As a very short point stands for adjudication, this appeal is hereby decided finally at motion hearing stage. On 6-8-98 at about 9.40 p.m. at Vita-Khanapur Road when respondent No. 1 was getting down from rickshaw, a motor cycle bearing No. 1 MAL-3239 which was driven by respondent No. 2 gave a dash to respondent No. 1. On account of that accident, respondent No. 1 sustained injuries resulting into fracture. The claimant alleged that he sustained 17% permanent disability on account of the said accident. The said vehicle was owned by the appellant.2. An application was moved by respondent No. 1 for getting the interim compensation in view of provisions of section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act for convenience) basing his claim on no fault liability doctrine. The insurance company disowned the liability of paying the compensation to the victim contending that the insurance cover expired on 5-8-1998. The appellant contended that...
islamic Investment Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: [2002]122TAXMAN719(Bom)
ORDERThis Chamber Summons is taken out by the respondents, the Food Corporation of India against whom an award was passed by the arbitrator on 21-1-1996. The award was made a rule of the court and a decree was passed in terms thereof on 8-3-2000. Under the decree a total amount payable towards principal was Rs. 7,99,067.16. The total decretal amount along with interest on principal at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from 7-2-1989 to 8-3-2000 including cost of Rs. 4,165.50 was in the sum of Rs. 16,89,430.66. The interest on the above principal sum of Rs. 7,99,067.16 for the period from 7-2-1989 to 8-3-2000 at the rate of 10 per cent per annum was Rs. 8,86,198. As per further interest on the above principal from 9-3-2000 to 31-12-2001 at the rate of 10 per cent per annum was in the sum of Rs. 1,45,145.62. Thus, the total interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum on the above principal from 7-2-1989 to 31-12-2001 came to Rs. 10,31,344.2. The Food Corporation of India has an account ...
Viacom Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC485Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Vaicom Electronics (P) Ltd., the issue involved is whether the Review Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise was beyond the scope of the SCN and whether there was any mutuality of interest between the appellants and M/s. Baron International Ltd. 2. Shri R. Nambirajan, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured Colour Television (for short CTVs) Audio and Video products out of their own raw materials and they sold their products entirely to M/s. Baron International Ltd. (for short BIL) after affixing with brand name AKAI. Show cause notice dated 16-10-1995 was issued to them demanding duty and imposing penalty on the ground that there was mutuality of interest between the appellants and BIL and the price for the purpose of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should be the price at which M/s. BIL were selling the impugned products; that the Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original dated 2-7-1999 vacated the SCN holdi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »