Mumbai Court July 2002 Judgments

Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant company received during 1996-97 various items of capital goods, required to manufacture coloured coated paper. The machinery was not installed and continued not to be installed to this date. The rules relating to modvat credit, as they stood on the date of the receipt of the goods, required the capital goods to be installed before the duty paid on them to be taken as credit. The appellant did not take any part of the duty that it paid. On 1.4.2002, the rules relating to modvat credit contained in Chapters AA and AAA of the Central Excise Rules relating to taking of credit in respect of inputs and capital goods were replaced. The new Rule 57AC provided for taking Cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs as well as capital goods making no distinction. Rule 57AC provided in Sub-rule (ii) (a) that 50% of the duty paid on capital goods may be taken as Cenvat credit in the financial year in which the goods were received in the factory.Sub-rule (ii)(b) provided that the bala...

Bhor Wavelock Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant at the relevant time was job worker for Bhor Industries Ltd. If filed in April 1994 a price list for the goods that it manufactured indicating as the assessable value the price at which Bhor Industries sold the goods to its dealers and claiming the deduction from this price of discounts which that company gave to its dealer. Notice issued to it proposed denial of the discount on the ground that the conditions subject to which the discounts were to be allowed has not been satisfied. The Assistant Collector confirmed the proposal in the notice. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the discounts were permissible to the extent that in cases that have been availed of and remanded the matter for verification on this aspect and further quantification of duty. Hence this appeal.2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that by application of the principles contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints and Ors. v. Union of India 1989 (3...

Bakemans Industries Limited Vs. Parle Products Limited and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR24; 2002(4)MhLj87

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is preferred by Bakemans Industries Limited challenging the order dated 22nd December, 1999 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks holding that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's application for rectification in view of the provisions of Section 107 of the Trade and'Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that the application would have to be made to the High Court.2. The petitioner, Bakemans Industries Limited, adopted a trade mark 'GLUCOGOLD' sometime in August, 1997. On 4th August, 1997 they applied for its registration in Class-30 which inter alia includes Bread and Biscuits.3. On 5th December, 1997, the petitioner did two things, viz.:--(1) They despatched the present application for rectification to the Registrar by Speed Post. In that application the petitioner prayed for rectification of the register to the effect that the respondents' trade mark 'GLUCO' be struck off the register.(2) They fi...

Bank of Maharashtra, a Banking Company Vs. Rajendra Liladhar Rathi and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2003)BC355; 2003BomCR(Cri)201

V.M. Kanade, J. 1. This criminal contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner-Bank of Maharashtra, which is a Banking Company duly constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act No. V of 1970, against the respondents who were the defendants in a Civil Suit filed by the Bank for recovery of certain amount.FACTS 2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the Directors of M/s. Apex Nylocraft Industries Private Limited. The respondent No. 1 is the Director of M/s. Apex Nylocraft Industries Private Limited. The respondent No. 2 was also a Director of the said company, but he expired during the pendency of these proceedings. The petitioner had given a loan to the respondents and since the said loan was not repaid, the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit against the condemners in which they had claimed an amount of Rs. 21,56,992.04. Though notices were served on the contemners in the said suit yet they did not appear before the Court conse...

Ramu Kerba Bhongarde Vs. Akbar Mohamed Naikwadi (Since Deceased Throug ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR958

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Both these writ petitions can be disposed of bycommon order a sit pertain to the same land and arisingfrom the tenancy proceedings between the same parties.These writ petitions take exception to the common orderpassed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, at CampKolhapur dated July 29, 1985 in Revision Nos.MRT/KP.315/1977 and MRT/KP.316/1977. The suit land issituated at survey No. 227 admeasuring 8 Acres 21Gunthas at Village Banage, Tal Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur.Undisputedly, the suit land was the Inam land i.e. HujurSanadi Inam governed by the provisions of the BombayMerged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations AbolitionAct, 1955. The Petitioners was inducted in the said landas tenant and, as he was lawfully cultivating the suitland in that capacity on the tillers day i.e. 1stApril, 1957, proceedings under Section 32G of the BombayTenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 were initiated.In that proceedings, the Petitioner unambiguously statedthat he was unwilling to pu...

Nana Tukaram Havalkar Since Deceased by His Heirs and Lrs. Ravindra An ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR1052; 2003(2)MhLj406

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 27th August, 1987 in Revision Application No. MRT/KP/96/84. 2. The land in question in the present proceeding is admeasuring 8 Acres 20 Gunthas out of Gat No. 37 of Village Talanduge, Taluka Hatkanangale, Dist. Kolhapur. The petitioners claim that they were tenants in respect of the said land prior to 1957 for which reason they had become deemed purchasers on the tillers day (1-4-1957). On that premise, application was filed by the petitioners under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T., Hatkanangale by order dated 20th September, 1982 allowed the said application and held that the petitioners were tenants on the tillers day and have become deemed purchasers. As a consequence of that declaration, the authority determined the purchase price in respect of the ...

Chandrashekhar Govind Daiwatkar and anr. Vs. Ramdas Govindrao Daiwatka ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR132

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1.The petitioners before this Court are the original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 1385 of 1995 which was instituted in the Court of the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur, for partition, for separate possession of the shares of the petitioners and for consequential reliefs. In the said suit, an application for the grant of an interim injunction restraining the original defendants from alienating the suit property was dismissed by the learned trial Judge by an order dated 24-7-1997. The respondent herein is the first defendant to the suit for partition. The petitioner filed an appeal before this Court against the order of the learned trial Judge declining to grant an interim injunction. The appeal was admitted on 11-2-1998 and on the civil application taken out in the aforesaid appeal, an order was passed in terms of prayer Clause (a), by which all the respondents thereto including the respondent herein were restrained by an order of injunction fr...

Koyappakalathil Ahamed Koya Vs. A.S. Menon and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)26; 2002CriLJ4502

J.C. Chitre, J.1. Heard at length with reference to evidence on record and the judgments referred to during the course of the arguments.2. The appellant is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in NDPS Special Case No. 106 of 1997 wherein the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under provisions of Section 21 read with Section 8(c) and Section 28 read with Section 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to an 'NDPS Act' for convenience). The appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for six months for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 21 read with Section 8(c) of NDPS Act. He has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rupees 1,00,000/- in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months for the offenc...

Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Gmbh and ors. Vs. Hindustan Lev ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR1043; (2003)105BOMLR547

A.P. Shah, J.1. In this appeal the questions for consideration are whether the Trial Court was right: in trying the issue Nos. 1 and 2 as preliminary issues under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C. for short); whether the suit filed by the appellants being Suit No. 6556 of 1999 against the respondents was barred by the provisions of Order II, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. and whether institution of the said suit amounts to abuse of process of law. The learned Trial Judge held that the suit was barred by the aforesaid provisions of Order II, Rule 2. The learned Trial Judge also held that the institution of the suit amounts to abuse of process of law. The suit was accordingly dismissed. For the purpose of brevity and to avoid confusion the appellants are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondents are referred to as the defendants.2. The plaintiff No. 1 is a German Company engaged inter alia in design and sale of the toothbrushes. The plaintiff No. 2 is a Co...

Auto and Hardware Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT330Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This bunch of appeals is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai enhancing the value of the audio amplifier and loudspeakers and other goods imported by Auto and Hardware Enterprises, ordering their confiscation under Clause (m) of Section 111, imposing penalties on the importing firm, Nareshkumar Manoharlal, its Manager and Kirit M. Udani, its partner.2. The goods under consideration were imported in January, 2000. The value declared by the importer was not accepted by the officers of the Mumbai Custom House who enhanced the value, without there however being an adjudication order. Pending clearance of the goods at the enhanced value, the officers of the Marine and Preventive Wing of the Commissioner Preventive seized the goods from the dock, conducted their investigation and issued notice proposing to enhance the value further and confiscated the goods and to impose penalty. It is on the adjudication of this notice that the Commissioner has passed th...