Mumbai Court January 2003 Judgments
Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Chintamani Oil Industries and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom347
ORDERS.T. Kharche, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lala, learned counsel, for the applicant/original plaintiff. None appears on behalf of the respondents though they are duly served. 2. This revision is directed against an order dated 14-2-1995 passed below Ex. 47, rejecting the request of the applicant-bank for adjournment and also against an order dated 23-8-1996 passed below Ex. 56 rejecting the review application by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., in Spl. Civil Suit No. 71 of 1990. 3. The facts, in brief, are as under : The plaintiff is a nationalized bank and it has granted and disbursed a term loan of Rs. 45,000/- and cash credit facility to the respondents for Rs. 30,000/- on 18-2-1983, cash credit limit was enhanced up to Rs. 60,000/- on 30-10-1995 and the bill purchase limit was also granted to respondents/non-applicants to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- Original defendants 4 and 5 stood as guarantor to the said transaction and executed a Deed of Guarantee on 15-5-1987 in favour of the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimrao S/O Laxmanrao Nihare Vs. Natwarlal S/O Ratansi Thakkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR249; 2004(2)BomCR877; (2004)106BOMLR816
S.T. Kharche, J.1. Rule taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.2. Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel, for the applicant and Mrs. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel, for the respondent.3. This revision is directed against an order dated 2.8.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Umrer in Reg. Civil Suit No. 171 of 1985, whereby he dismissed the suit on account of non-compliance of the order passed below Ex. 36 on 28.11.1986 directing the tenant to deposit the rent on the first day of each month regularly since December, 1996.4. The brief facts are as under:The applicant is the tenant and the non-applicant is the landlord. The tenant had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 171 of 1985 seeking relief of injunction simpliciter restraining the landlord from disturbing his peaceful possession. The landlord had filed an application under Order XVA read with Order XXXIX, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code with a prayer that the suit be dismissed as the tenant has not com...
Tag this Judgment!Essel Packaging Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(109)LC94Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals arise from the same order-in-Original passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III against the appellants confirming a duty demand of Rs. 54,30,713/- and imposing a penalty of of Rs. 41 Lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and also directing the appellants to pay interest at the rate of 20% under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. The main issue involved is whether the value of Plastic Caps is includible in the assessable value of the Tubes manufactured and cleared by the appellants. In the impugned order, the Adjudicating Commissioner has held that the same is includible. He has also held that the extended period under Section 11A (!) is applicable as there was suppression of facts, with intent to evade payment of duty. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the Tubes manufactured by them are also sold without caps. In the case of supplies to M/s. Colgate, the appellants have fitted caps on the tubes and that in such ...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Steel Union Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC91Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Anil Balani, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants takes us through the history of the case which has travelled up to the Apex Court vide [K.R. Steel Union Ltd. v. C.C. Kandla - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.)]. The impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla in pursuance of Paragraph 15 of the said order of the Apex Court which reads as follows:- "For the reasons stated above, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the Collector, hence, we reverse the finding of the tribunal to the extent it is challenged before us. We make it clear that the appellants has not questioned the finding of the tribunal in regard to the import of special steel plates weighing about 11 MT. To this extent, the order of the tribunal remains undisturbed and as directed by the tribunal the matter shall stand remanded to the Commissioner for considering the liability of the appellants to pay penalty for the unauthorised import of the said special steel plates." 2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiyalal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT747Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri. S.P. Mathew, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that in both these appeals issues relate to confiscation and undervaluation of the White Poppy Seeds and Yellow Poppy Seeds imported from Turkey. He has brought to our notice the final order of Court No.I being Order No. C-I/3976/WZB/2002, dated 22-11-2002 [2003 (151) E.L.T. 674 (Tribunal)] wherein the Tribunal has considered the import of Yellow Poppy Seeds involving the said two issues in the appellants own case for an earlier period. The decision has been given in favour of the appellants while allowing their appeal. The learned counsel inter alia submitted that since the issues involved in the present appeal are fully covered by the said decision, the stay may be granted in the matter.2. Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Jt. C.D.R. has opposed the arguments of the learned counsel and has tried to distinguish the issues involved on the ground of colour of poppy seeds. To a querry from the Bench as to whether the i...
Tag this Judgment!Muljibhai Patel Society for Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT171Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Anil Balani, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants are a Charitable Trust and that the DGHS certificate issued in their favour is till valid and has not been cancelled. He states that their case has been wrongly decided at par with other importers covered by the Rosha Committee recommendations though they have fulfilled the conditions attached to the exemption Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988. He further states that income-tax returns have been filed with the Commissioner to prove that the appellants are a non-profit organisation and have not made any profit. He also states that statements have been furnished to the Commissioner indicating that 14 out of 120 beds in the Hospital have also been reserved for low income indoor patients and the hospital has also provided free treatment to large number of out door patients.2. The learned Advocate cites the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Yellamma Dasappa v. C.C., Ban...
Tag this Judgment!Manik Radiators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT749Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 20,01,301/- and penalties of Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 17,39,469/- imposed upon the applicant company and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed upon its Director, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, who has confirmed the demand on the ground that the applicant company manufactured goods, namely, electric spray guns and stain removing gun which were affixed with the brand name 'Pilot', which belonged to another company, namely, M/s. Manik Machinery, and thus the applicant company was not entitled to the benefit of small scale industry Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993.2. It is the contention of the applicants, who are represented by their counsel Shri V.S. Nankani, that the spray guns manufactured by them are not identical to the spray guns manufactured by Manik Machinery with the brand name 'Pilot', and that the stain removing guns manufactured by them are not manufactured by M/s. Manik ...
Tag this Judgment!Dadar Avanti Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom336; 2003(3)ALLMR559; 2003(5)BomCR337; 2003(2)MhLj914
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The petitioner-co-operative society has been fighting this litigation since 1986-87 and this is a third occasion for them to approach this Court, by means of instant writ petition. The long standing dispute, in the present petition, centers around the question as to whether the municipal authorities namely respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in this petition could have permitted respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to convert their flat Nos. 3 and 4 from residential purpose to that of a commercial one for opening of surgical nursing home. In other words, whether opening of a surgical nursing home by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in purely residential zone is in accordance with the Development Control Regulation for Greater Bombay, 1991 (for short 'Regulation of 1991').2. The factual matrix, giving rise to the present writ petition, reveals that respondent No. 5 M/s. Amar Builders (for short 'builder') submitted plans to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay on July 25, 1979 for construction ...
Tag this Judgment!Kold-hold Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Arabian Exports Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: [2004]119CompCas1(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 434 of the Companies Act, seeking an order of winding up of the respondent-company on the allegation that it is unable to pay its debts, The statutory notice required to be served on the respondent-company by virtue of the provisions of Section 434 was issued on January 14, 2002. It was addressed to the respondent-company and it was sent to the following address :'Rashid Mansion,Worli Point,Mumbai 400 018.'2. That statutory notice was replied to by the respondent-company. The reply is dated February 20, 2002. A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the service of the notice dated January 14, 2002, is not valid. The admitted position is that the registered office of the respondent-company was 'Rashid Mansion, Worli Point, Mumbai 400 018'. However, an application on behalf of the respondent-company was filed on March 30, 2001, for change of registered address and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kold-hold Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Arabian Exports Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: [2004]55SCL131(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 434 of the Companies Act, seeking an order of winding up of the respondent-company on the allegation that it is unable to pay its debts. The statutory notice required to be served on the respondent-company by virtue of the provisions of Section 434 was issued on January 14, 2002. It was addressed to the respondent-company and it was sent to the following address :'Rashid Mansion,Worli Point, Mumbai 400 018'That statutory notice was replied to by the respondent-company. The reply is dated February 20, 2002. A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the service of the notice dated January 14, 2002, is not valid. The admitted position is that the registered office of the respondent-company was 'Rashid Mansion, Worli Point, Mumbai 400 018'. However, an application on behalf of the respondent-company was filed on March 30, 2001, for change of registered address and the cha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »