Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Kelkar and Kelkar Vs. Indian Airlines and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR847; 2004(1)ARBLR381(Bom); 2004(2)BomCR57

R.M. Lodha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1st November, 1995 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Arbitration suit filed by the appellant herein under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. For the sake of convenience we shall refer the present appellant as the contractor and the first respondent as the Indian Airlines. The Indian Airlines invited tenders in the year 1988 for construction of their building at Pune. The contractor responded to the said tender. Ultimately, the contract was arrived at between the contractor and the Indian Airlines for construction of Indian Airlines building at Pune. The general conditions of the contract formed part of the terms and conditions of the said contract between the contractor and the Indian Airlines. The contract terms, thus, provided that all questions and disputes arising by and between the parties out of and/or in relation thereto shall be referred to the Arbitration provided therein. The co...

Sunil S/O Gopalkrishna Tuvlare and anr. Vs. Principal, Sou. Vasudhatai ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR397; 2004(2)MhLj99

V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.Heard finally by consent of parties.This petition is at the instance of the students taking education in the second year in Two Years Diploma in Agriculture. The petitioners seek to challenge the communication dated 26th March, 2003, in the nature of order passed by respondent No. 3, holding that the petitioners are not eligible for the final examination in Diploma in Agriculture, commenced from 24th March 2003, as the petitioners appearing for the final examination should have attended the classes for not less than 85% of the working days during the academic year. The petitioners have also sought directions to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to supply examination forms of the second year Diploma in Agriculture for academic year 2002-2003, after accepting requisite charges on the contention that the petitioners were regular in attending their classes and for extraneous reasons they were sought to be detained for want of 85% attendance.2. This Court vi...

Sheetal A. Abhyankar (Ms.) and ors. Vs. Maharashtra University of Heal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR369; 2004(2)MhLj689

V. G. Palshikar, J.1. All these petitions challenge the Rules 56 and 57 of Ordinance 1 of 2002 framed by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the Health University) on the ground that the same are inconsistent with the Regulation framed by the Medical Council of India and it is therefore prayed that these Rules should be quashed insofar as they are inconsistent with the Medical Council of India Regulations.2. Since all these petitions raise identical question, by consent of all concerned, all the petitions were taken up together and were heard together and are now being decided together by this order. Certain facts giving rise to the present petitions will have to be noted briefly.3. The Medical Education in the State of Maharashtra was administered by various Universities situated in the State. Each University has its own independent college or colleges for imparting instructions in medical education leading to diploma, degrees at post graduate lev...

iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Inc. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR418; 2004(1)BomCR479

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Appeal Nos. 702 and 703 of 2003 seek to challenge the order of a Single Judge dated 8th August, 2003 rejecting two Notices of Motion bearing Nos. 2557 of 2002 and 2793 of 2002, which were taken out by the appellants herein in Suit No. 3092 of 2002, which the appellants have filed against the respondents. The two motions sought orders in the nature of attachment before judgment and injunction for obtaining security for a decree that might be passed in the appellants pending suit. Amongst others, the suit claims are (1) US $ 12,04,90,000 with further interest at the rate of 5% per annum on US $ 9,03,30,000 and (2) a sum of Rs. 3,77,21,54,857 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 48,11,00,000.2. This motion taken out by respondent No. 1 herein seeks through prayer (a) to produce and rely upon the documents listed in the schedule annexed to the motion. Prayer (b) seeks that Mr. Ravi Parthasarthy, Managing Director of ILFS, who has veri...

Mohammad Asgar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2004)DMC704

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Bhangde, as well as Mr. Sonare, learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State. 2. The applicant had filed application below Exh. 3 in Sessions Trial No. 372/2003 pending in the Court of learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge of Nagpur for release on bail. The application filed by the applicant came to be rejected by order dated 20th September, 2003 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur for release on bail. The application filed by applicant came to be rejected by the order dated 29th September, 2003 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge at Nagpur and, therefore, the present application is filed by the original accused in S.T. No. 372/2003. 3. The prosecution case in short is that, the deceased Khurshida Begum, was wife of the present applicant and was being ill-treated by the present applicant on account of demand of Splendor Motor Bike and Colour TV. The prosecution claims that prior to the date of incident for about 7-8 day...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the miscellaneous applications seek extension of the stay orders granted to the them earlier on the ground that a period of 180 days has already expired and the Revenue would be entitled to recover the duties and penalties imposed in such cases, in the absence of extension of stay order.2. We are aware that the issue in dispute as to whether the Tribunal has power to extend the stay beyond the period of 180 days has been referred to a larger bench by observing that two divergent views of the Tribunal are available on the said disputed issue. In view of the fact that one of the decision of the Tribunal has held that extension is within the powers of the Tribunal and the matter is still before larger bench, we are of the view that meanwhile extension should be given to the applicants for the said purpose. We also note of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CCE - Order No.C-II/329/03 WZB dated 12.11.2003.3. In view of the foregoing we allow all the mi...

Arvind Intex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT235Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The lower authorities have denied credit on capital goods amounting to Rs. 82,750/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has also been imposed in respect of two machineries :- Shri Vyas, learned Advocate states that the first machine is used for wrapping a set of cones of yarn and is as such used for packing of finished goods to make it marketable. As far as the second machine is concerned, he states that this machine is used for replacing flats in carding machines as the flats are used for opening cotton for carding which has to be replaced after 400 tonnes of cotton is carded. He submits that the first machine is used for packing and completion of finished goods to make it marketable whereas the second machine is used for making the raw material suitable for use in the manufacture of yarn and hence both are eligible for Modvat credit. I find merit in the submissions made by the learned Advocate. Considering the functions of both the machines, I am of the view that both a...

Parshuram Forge Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of amounts confirmed against the appellant, we proceed to dispose of the appeal, with the consent of both the sides.2. In one appeal penalty of Rs. 8,39,000/- has been imposed for the period June 99 to October 99 and in the other appeal penalty of Rs. 3,56,800/- has been imposed for the period December 98 to May 99 on the ground that the appellants had failed to deposit the duty in accordance with the Annual Capacity of Production fixed by the Commissioner.3. The appellant's contention is that during all these periods, they were challenging fixation of ACP fixed condition by the Commissioner on the ground that the value of d'factor taken into consideration was not the correct value. The above stand was accepted by the Commissioner, on 29.10.99 when he accepts the claim of the appellant as regards the value of d'factor. However, he raises demand on the ground that the earlier order fixing ACP was inforce and the new order made is on...

Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT183Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules for the reason of interest loss suffered by the Revenue on account of delayed payment of duty. Original authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 7 which was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Appellant is manufacturing different chemicals classified under Chapter 28 and 29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The product caustic soda manufactured by the appellant at its caustic soda plant is required as input in the neighbouring sodium cyanide plant in the manufacture of sodium cyanide. The price of caustic soda being different for different buyers at the factory gate it was cleared to sodium cyanide plant on payment of duty at the price arrived at on the costing data. R.T.12 Returns and connected documents indicating the aforesaid price were being regularly filed by the assessee but no objection wa...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT260Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this appeal at the instance of the Revenue two issues are raised, one relating to classification of the goods cleared by the respondent and the other relating to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara to entertain the appeal. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara, dated 20-1-1998 and it is seen that the appeal was filed by the Revenue itself challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Division-IV, Vadodara, dated 8-9-1994 finalising the assessment by classifying the goods cleared under Chapter Heading 84.30.2. The appellant cannot be heard to challenge the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) as the appeal was filed by the Revenue itself and it had submitted to the jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara without taking any objection before him regarding his jurisdiction. Apart from the above, in our order dated 31-10-2003 in Appeal No. E/1277/98-Mum., ...