Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Harinarayan G. Bajaj Vs. Rajesh Meghani

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR34; 2004(2)ARBLR101(Bom); 2004(3)BomCR165; [2005]123CompCas11(Bom); (2005)3CompLJ258(Bom); [2004]51SCL476(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by Mr. Justice D.K. Deshmukh on 5th June, 2003 in an arbitration petition instituted under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. On 21st June 2001, the First Respondent submitted a claim for the recovery of a net amount of Rs. 3,46,89,636.12 before an Arbitral Forum constituted under the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. ('NSE')- The First Respondent was a member of NSE, while the Appellant was his constituent. A member-client agreement dated 15th January, 2001 was stated to have been entered into between the parties. The basis of the claim was that transactions had been entered into on behalf of the Appellant through the on line screen based trading system of NSE and, in Settlement 10 of 2001 covering the period between 7th March, 2001 and 13th March, 2001, the First Respondent bought for and on behalf of the Appellant, 1,61,000 shares of a Company known by...

C. Gupta Vs. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceutical Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR575; [2004(101)FLR1109]; (2004)ILLJ952Bom

R.S. Mohite, J.1. Both these appeals seek to quash and set aside a common judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 462 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 695 of 1996 decided by a learned single Judge on April 13, 1999.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are as under:(a) That on August 4, 1976 Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Company') which has now been taken over by the present respondent No. 1 (Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) indicated their intention to advertise the post of 'Industrial Relations Executive'. Since members of the staff who fell in the category of 'Management Staff Grade-III' were also entitled to apply for the vacant post which fell in 'Management Staff Grade-II' an advance staff notice was also taken out by the company. The same incorporated the text of the advertisement which was to follow. The relevant part from the advertisement which pertains to the duties required to be performed by the selected candidate was as...

Deshbhakta Ratnappa Kumbhar Panchganga Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR68; 2004(2)MhLj744

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this Petition, the petitioners M/s Deshbhakta Ratnappa Kumbhar Panchganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. are challenging the order passed by the respondent No. 1 the Hon'ble Minister for State Excise. Government of Maharashtra dated 3-10-2001.2. The brief facts are that the petitioner Co-operative Society was granted CL-I Licence on 4-10-1973 for manufacture of country liquor under Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973. It appears that the petitioner was carrying on the said business under the said licence till about 1982-1983 and thereafter due to certain unavoidable circumstances, the said CL-I licence was not renewed. In view thereof, from 1-4-1983, manufacture of country liquor was stopped by the petitioner. After a lapse of about almost fifteen years, the petitioner Society decided to appoint some suitable person to conduct the said business of manufacture of country liquor.3. It is the case of the petitioner that a Conducting Agreement was entered into b...

A.S. Iyer Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR3; 2004(3)BomCR333; (2004)ILLJ885Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this petition, the Petitioner claims that his retiral benefits such as pension and gratuity be computed, taking into account the service rendered by him with the Institute of Sugarcane Research, Lucknow from July 27, 1953 to November 17, 1965 and for setting aside the order of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 levying penal rent on the Petitioner and recovering it from the gratuity payable by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The Petitioner has also sought a writ striking down the Rule imposing ceiling on the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner as also for a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay to him pro-rata pension for the service rendered by him with the erstwhile employer.2. The Petitioner was initially employed with the Institute of Sugarcane Research, Lucknow as an Assistant Agricultural Engineer from July 27, 1963. He resigned on November 17, 1965 and immediately on then next day, joined the services of Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred t...

Mohan Vs. Arjuna (Deceased) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2004)BC88

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.3.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1989, who allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on 24.2.1986 in Special Civil Suit No. 3 of 1983 by which the Trial Court decreed the suit of appellant/plaintiff for specific performance of the contract with costs and dismissed the counter-chum and directed the respondent/defendant No, 1 Arjuna (now deceased) to execute the sale-deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff on receiving a sum of Rs. 20,4257-within two months from the date of judgment and in case of failure to execute the sale-deed, the appellant/plaintiff was directed to deposit the amount in the Court within one month and get the sale-deed executed through the Court.2. The short and substantial question of law ...

Mohan J. Pawar Vs. Arjuna N. Dighade (D) by Lr and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom406; 2004(3)ALLMR171

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction or this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-3-1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1989, who allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 24-2-1986 in Special Civil Suit No. 3 of 1983 by which the trial Court decree the suit of appellant/ plaintiff for specific performance of the contract with costs and dismissed the counterclaim and directed the respondent/defendant No. 1 Arjuna (now deceased) to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant/ plaintiff on receiving a sum of Rs. 20.425/- within two months from the date of judgment and in case of failure to execute the sale deed, the appellant/plaintiff was directed to deposit the amount in the Court within one month and get the sale deed executed through the Court.2. The short and substantial question of la...

Cce and C Andcommissioner of Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC35

1. Each of the respondents to these appeals was engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, part of which it cleared without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 217/86 to another factory owned by it, in which such goods were used in the manufacture of excisable goods which were cleared on payment of duty. The assessees had availed of the modvat credit facility and taken credit of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of goods which were cleared to the other factory for further utilisation therein. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether they were required to reverse the modvat credit of this inputs as were cleared from the factory without payment of duty. In the two orders impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CCE held that there was no such requirement and allowed their appeals against the order of the adjudicating authority denying credit. Hence these appeals by th...

Mek Slotted Angles (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT948Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The stay applications filed alongwith these appeals were argued by Shri V.S. Sejpal, learned Chartered Accountant and Shri R.S. Pardeshi learned J.D.R. on 12/05/2003 before the Bench comprising by Hon'ble Member Shri Gowri Shankar and Shri G.N. Srinivasan. We find that the said Bench, after hearing detailed arguments on the merit of the case, on limitation, as well as financial hardship, passed an order directing the appellants to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 15 Lakhs within a month and to report compliance on 02/07/2003 as against the total liability of Rs. 85,55,458/- (Rs.42,75,729/- duty + Rs. 42,75,729/- penalty). The appellants have not paid the amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs directed to be pre-deposited. They have filed a Miscellaneous application dtd.05/08/2003 seeking modification of the order of pre-deposit. The matter was argued by Shri V. Sridharan, learned advocate and Shri Hitesh Shah, learned S.D.R. on 13/10/2003 before this Bench. The learned advocate fairly concedes that nothi...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Advani Oerlikon Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT171Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides on 21-10-2002 the appeal was rejected and the order was pronounced in the Court on the same day. The reasons for the said order are as follows :- This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal directing classification of the impugned goods under Chapter 72. The learned Advocate for the appellants brings it to our notice that Board's clarification issued under F.No. 139/13/88-CX. 4, dated 7-11-1988 requires copper coated steel wires to be classified under Chapter 72. He has also drawn our attention to the Chemical Examiner's Report dated 28-3-1989 that the product was steel wires coated with copper and that it was not coated or covered with flux material. The learned Advocate also brings to our notice that in several other Commissionerates, the impugned goods have been classified under Chapter 72 and not under Chapter 83 as claimed by the Department.They have also cited the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in their ca...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maruti Textiles Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The assessee, Maruti Textiles Pvt Ltd, was engaged in the manufacture of processing of textile fabrics. It took modvat credit of the duty deemed to have been paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of its finished product, utilising it towards payment of duty on such fabrics. It applied for refund of the credit taken by it in the quarter ending October 1998 available on the inputs used by it in the manufacture of fabrics which it exported, as permitted under Sub-rule (13) of Rule 57F. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on various grounds.2. The assessee appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the basis for the denial was not in order and allowed.Hence this appeal by the Commissioner.3. The counsel for the respondent says that, whether the assessee was entitled to the refund in cash of the credit, is not really material; the Commissioner (Appeals) has said in his order that the amount of credit which is at the balance of the assessee...