Mumbai Court July 2002 Judgments
Oil and Narural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR657
D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. In these proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an Arbitral Award dated 4th December, 2001 of three arbitrators appointed to adjudicate upon the disputes which had arisen between the parties is sought to be questioned.2. An agreement was entered into between the petitioners and a consortium of two bidders consisting of the respondent and a company known by the name of P.J. Pipes and Vessels Ltd. ('PJPVL'). Under the terms of the agreement which was entered into between the parties, PJPVL was to supply Risers and Bends and the respondent was to supply line pipes to the petitioner. There is no dispute between the parties of the fact that in pursuance of the contract that was entered into, goods came to be supplied. There is no dispute either as regards the supply of the goods contracted for or in regard to the quality of the goods supplied. On 25th March, 1996, a letter was addressed to the petitioner by the respondent and PJPV...
Tag this Judgment!Dalpat Ganpat Koli and ors. Vs. Ganesh Dattatraya Kerhalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR35
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. The petitioners are the original defendants and the respondent is the original plaintiff.2. The brief facts of the case are summarised as under :The plaintiff had filed civil suit for possession of the premises and the recovery of arrears of rent, regarding the premises which were situated in the municipal limits at Raver, District Jalgaon bearing C.T.S. No. 760. The original defendant Ganpat Dagadu Koli was tenant of the suit property. The plaintiffs' case is that in the year, 1949, he had let out the suit premises to Ganpat Koli with a condition that he would occupy the suit premises and in exchange supply him milk. In consideration of the supply of milk, the original tenant Ganpat Koli was to enjoy the extreme western end of the suit premises. Ganpat Koli had occupied the premises and was using the same. He expired in the year, 1960. He neither kept up the promise nor he handed over the possession of suit premises to the plaintiff. After demise of Ganpat Koli, ...
Tag this Judgment!Novartis India Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC969Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding the order of the Assistant Collector who has disallowed modvat credit of Rs. 16,45,976/- on the ground that they utilised the modvat credit taken on inputs used in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 29 (bulk drugs) towards payment of duty on goods falling under Chapter 30 (formulations) of the Schedule to CETA, 1985.2. On hearing both sides we find that the issue in dispute stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Tribunal's decision in their own case as Sandoz (India) Ltd. v. CCE, the present appellant was earlier known as Sandoz (India) Ltd. The relevant extracts of the Tribunal's decision are reproduced below: 6. We have considered the rival submissions. In Rule 57F(3) it has been provided as follows: Provided that the credit of specified duty in respect of inputs used in the final products cleared for export under bond or used in the intermediate prod...
Tag this Judgment!Smzs Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC492Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The facts leading to this dispute are interesting and deserve to be narrated fully.2. The appellants were manufacturing excisable and dutiable goods.There was a dispute of classification. On hearing the assessees and on perusal of the literature of the products as also on examination of the test reports, the jurisdictional Assistant Collector accepted the contention of the assessees on classification. In the meanwhile the assessees were paying the duty at the higher rate. On their claim of classification being accepted they filed five refund claims totalling Rs. 29,73,049/-. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector after narrating the facts as above, observed that the claims were filed within the permissible period and also that the doctrine of unjust enrichment had no application. He passed order granting the refund claim on 29-4-1994.The order bore file number as V(39)/18-65/TVI/93, dated 29-4-1994.Refund Order No. 66/Cex/FBI/94, was signed on 29-9-1994 on which date it bore the at...
Tag this Judgment!Delux Carpet Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT80Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals are made against the same order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (P), Mumbai they are therefore being disposed of vide this single order.2. We have heard Shri S.N. Kantawala for the appellants and Shri Virag Gupta for the Revenue.3. M/s. Delux Carpet Co. were in possession of an Import-Export Pass Book bearing Sr. No. 0011261 issued on 27-2-1989. Four consignments of raw materials had been imported and cleared in terms of this pass book.Investigations were conducted in the utilisation of this licence. Show cause notice dt. 19-8-1991 was issued alleging that M/s. Delux Carpet Co. had disposed of the earlier imported goods through one Devraj D.Behl. In another place the allegation was made that the pass book itself was sold by M/s. De-lux Carpet Co. to Shri Devraj D. Behl. Shri Behl was assisted by Shri Mahen-dra C. Srimankar in falsifying certain documents to show due importation and utilisation of the imported goods by M/s. Delux Carpet Co. 3 consignments l...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikrishna Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ494CAT
1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal for finalisation of his pension case.2. The applicant was appointed in 1977, declared as quasi permanent in 1980 came to be transferred from Ratnagiri to Nagpur and continued in service till 2.6.1987, while working at Nagpur, according to the applicant, he suffered from severe illness and due to ill-health and other circumstances beyond his control, he tendered his resignation on 02.6.1987. It was accepted on 11.11.1987 and a certificate was issued accordingly on 01.9.1999. The applicant had been working as Transmission Executive at All India Radio from 31.3.1977 to 1.6.1987.He also obtained no objection certificate. According to the applicant, since he had put in 10 years of continuous service, he is entitled to pensionary benefits, but the same has not been finalised in his case.As per Pension Rules, having put in more than 10 years of service, he is entitled to pension. The applicant has cited the judgment in the case of Omprakash Singh...
Tag this Judgment!Chatrabhuj Dwarakadas Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)87ITD147(Mum.)
1. The assessee is in appeal arising out of the order of CIT(A) XXI, Mumbai dated 5-1-2000. The assessment year under consideration is assessment year 1996-97. As per grounds of appeal number of grounds have been raised which revolve around a major issue whether the capital gain is chargeable for the year under consideration. Whether revenue authorities were right to hold that "transfer" took place as per the provisions of Section 2(47) of Income-tax Act during the year under consideration It is also challenged that since the possession of the property was handed over during the assessment year 1999-2000, therefore, the transfer took place in that very assessment year.2. The return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs. 15,63,690, however, the assessment was completed under Section, 143(3) vide order dated 26-3-1999 for the assessment year 1996-97 on the assessed income of Rs. 75,02,780. The main addition was in respect of long term capital gain on sale of Gamdevi Property ...
Tag this Judgment!Narsingrao Gurunath Patil and ors. Vs. Arun Gujarathi, Speaker and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR363
A.P. Shah, J.1. These writ petitions under Article 226 challenge the orders passed by the Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on 13th June, 2002 disqualifying the petitioners from membership of the assembly under Article 191(2) read with Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. 2. The elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly were held in September, 1999. The assembly is composed of 289 members of which 288 members are elected and 1 is nominated. The 1999 assembly elections did not give a clear mandate to any single political party. After the elections the position of the parties was as under: Indian National Congress 75Shiv sena 69N.C.P. 61B.J.P. 56P.W.P. 05B.S.P. 03C.P.M. 02Janata Dal (S) 02G.G.P. 01N.P.P. 01R.P.I. 01S.J.P. (M) 01Independent 12The Indian National Congress and N.C.P. with the support of Janata Dal (S), P.W.P., C.P.M., B.B.M., M.P.P., R.P.I. and ten independent legislators joined together to form Democratic Front (DF for short) and elected Mr. V...
Tag this Judgment!Rambhau Yashwantrao Chinchmalatpure and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR639; 2003(2)BomCR447
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The petitioners are seeking an appropriate writ and direction from this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents to restore the possession of the land which was acquired by the respondents by virtue of an award dated 14-10-1949. The petitioners are seeking this direction on the ground that the land has not been used for the purpose for which it was acquired. 2. The brief admitted facts of the case are; that on 14-10-1949 the land admeasuring 27.66 acres owned by late Yashwantrao Chinchmalatpure was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer by passing an Award on 14-10-1949. The said land was acquired by applying an urgency clause and thereafter the possession was taken by the respondents. The land in question was acquired for the Radio Range of Civil Aviation Department of the respondent No. 1. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that though the land was acquired by applying urgency Clause, the land was not put to any us...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dcl Polyesters Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC232Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above three appeals involve common issues and are hence heard together and disposed off by this common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10-8-1992 and 19-10-1992 M/s. DCL Polyester Limited (hereinafter referred to as the importers) were issued two Value Based Advance Licences. In December, 1994 and January, 1995 they completed the export obligation under VBAL licences by using inputs namely PTA (Purified Terephthalic Acid), MEG (Mono Ethylene Glycol), TIO2 (Titanium Dioxide) and by exporting polyester synthetic filament yarn (non-textured). In February, 1996 their plant was visited by the Preventive Officers of the Nagpur Commissionerate and they were directed to reverse an amount of Rs. 1,17,00,296/- worked out on the basis that Modvat credit of Rs. 64,90,252/- and Rs. 52,10,039/- was availed towards both the above VBAL licences on the entire quantity of inputs required for the manufacture of the export products. In August, 1996 DCL Polyester applied for refund ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »