Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Ravi Rameshkumar Bhatia Vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corpora ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom92; 2004(1)ALLMR438; 2004(3)BomCR661; 2004(2)MhLj448

ORDER1. By consent rule returnable forthwith.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs viz.(i) Declaration that respondent No. 3 has no authority of law to collect escort fee from the members of the public at the entry and exit points of Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation.(ii) Order directing respondent No. 3 to pay to respondent No. 2 Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation the entire amount of escort fee collected by him from 25-7-2002 till the date of filing of the petition i.e. 23-4-2003.3. The petitioner is a resident of Asalegaon, Ambernath and he carries the business of dealing in supply of building materials. He has a godown at Asalegaon, Ambernath Rural, District Thane. The petitioner takes delivery of cement loads from the ACC company at Thane and also from Larsen and Toubro Company Limited at Urban, District-Raigad. These goods are then carried to his godown at Asalegaon, According to the petitioner his goods are ...

Tulsiram Natthuji Salmakhe Vs. General Manager, Maharashtra State Co-o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR842; (2004)IILLJ218Bom; 2004(1)MhLj481

B. R. Gavai, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard finally.2. The short question that arises for consideration, in the present petition, is as to whether an employee can withdraw the notice for voluntary retirement, before it comes into effect, or before the expiry of the period stipulated in the notice for voluntary retirement.3. The facts in brief in the present petition are as under.4. That, the petitioner was working as Branch Manager in the respondent No. 2, bank, i.e. The Yavatmal District Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, Yavatmal. The petitioner applied on 30-10-2000, under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, framed by the respondent bank, by its Circular dated 8-7-1999. Clause 1 of the said Circular, provides that such of the employees, who have continuously worked for a period of 20 years and who are not more than 56 years of age, can opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme, by giving three months' advance notice.5. The petitioner, ...

The SaThe Biscuits and Chocolates Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Bank of Mahara ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom101; 2004(1)ALLMR394; II(2004)BC459; 2004(3)BomCR735; [2004]122CompCas251(Bom); 2004(2)MhLj892

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed to this Court to direct the Respondent No. 1 Bank of Maharashtra to decide various applications made by them to respondent No. 1 for One Time Settlement (OIS) in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India for compromise settlement of Chronic non performing assets of Public Sector Bank. A prayer is also made to quash and set aside a communication, dated Sept. 30, 2003 (Exh. K) by restraining the first Respondent Bank not to proceed with effecting recovery of dues against the petitioners.2. Certain facts are not in dispute. The respondent No. 1 Bank approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Pune for recovery of certain dues from the petitioners under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Ex parte order was passed on 18th July, 2002 against the petitioners. It was for Rs. 1,48,31,917.28. It is also not in dispute that before the ...

In Re: Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]121CompCas623(Bom); (2004)3CompLJ296(Bom); [2004]51SCL360(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The sanction of the Court is sought under the provisions of Section 394(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 to a scheme of arrangement.2. The petitioner ('NPIL') has an investment of 93 lakh equity shares each of the face value of Rs. 10 in a company by the name of Gujarat Glass Private Limited. ('GGPL'). This investment constitutes 53.76 per cent of the equity capital of the GGPL. Clause 4 of the proposed scheme provides that with effect from 1-7-2003, the appointed date, the investment of NPIL in GGPL shall stand transferred to and vested in a company known by the name of Kojam Fininvest Ltd. ('Kojam'). As a consideration for the transfer, Clause 5 of the proposed scheme stipulates that Kojam shall issue and allot shares to every member of NPIL holding fully paid-up equity shares in NPIL and whose name appears in the Register of members of NPIL on the record date. Kojam is to allot for four equity shares held in NPIL, one equity share of Kojam of the face value of Rs...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajendra Shantilal Nahar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)MhLj555

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard. Rule.Shri Girme waives service for respondent. Reply has been filed. Parties have argued at length. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11-2-2002 passed below Exhibits 8, 9 and 14 in Special Case No. 1 of 2002 releasing the three accused on bail by Special Judge, Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 at Nasik, the State Government initially had filed Criminal Revision Application No. 138 of 2002 and subsequently as per the leave granted by this Court vide order dated 27-11-2003, it was converted into a Criminal Application revoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of the bail granted to accused No. 1 Rajendra Shantilal Nahar. Before I proceed to discuss the rival contentions, the case of the prosecution requires to be set out in brief.3. Rajendra s/o Shantilal Nahar, a resident of Ahmednagar town started Nahar Tobacco Indu...

Pradip S/O Maroti Gautre Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR227

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Loney, learned A.P.P., for respondent-State.2. The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.8.1999 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No. 146/1997 whereby the appellant - accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as well as directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. The other co-accused Maroti is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal.3. Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the accused states that in the instant case though prosecution examined in all 6 prosecution witnesses, out of which P.W. 1 Madhao, P.W. 2 Natthu are the eye witnesses and P.W. 5 Dr. Anjali, who has conducted post-mortem examination on the body of dec...

Piyush D. Shah and Prakash D. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide stay order No. CI/1291-98/WZB/2003 dated 18/06/2003 Shri Piyush Shah was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs and of Rs. 1 lakh in the two appeals filed by him and Shri Prakash Shah was directed to deposit an amount of Rs, 1 lakh within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It was observed in the stay order that failure to comply with this direction shall result in vacation of stay and rejection of appeals without prior notice. The matter was listed for ascertaining compliance on 25/08/2003.2. However, instead of complying with the above directions the appellant filed a miscellaneous application for modification of the stay order. The said miscellaneous application was heard by the bench on 28/10/2003 and after rejecting the request for modification time for pre-deposit was extended by another four weeks.3. When the matter came up today for ascertaining compliance Shri Piyush Shah submits that nothing has been deposited by him till date.He make...

Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT174Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The short dispute in the present appeal is the correct classification of the printed plastic films. Whereas the Revenue has classified the product under heading 3920.39 as printed plastic, the appellants' contention is that the product is properly classifiable under Chapter Heading 4901.90.2. Shri Patil, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submit that the issue is no more res integra and has been decided by the Tribunal in their own case vide final order No. 358-359/98-C dated 30/04/1998 when the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. The Tribunal relying upon the earlier decision in the case of Adhunik Plastic Industries reported in 1998 (26) RLT 357 has held that plain plastic films printed with the details of the brand product and the seller are properly classifiable under heading 4901.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Shri Patil submits that though the said decision was quoted before the adjudicating authority, he has not followed the same by observing that th...

Mehta Trading House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT730Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide the impugned orders the authorities below have confiscated the glass beeds imported by the appellant with an option to them to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine on the ground that the same required a licence, whereas the appellant have imported goods under OGL. For identical reasons penalties have also been imposed upon them in all the three cases.2. Shri Naresh Thacker, learned Advocate appealing for the appellant submits that glass beeds were imported by the appellants under OGL for a number of years. The present consignments were imported in June and July, 1992 under OGL. However, the customs authorities entertained a doubt about the glass beeds being consumer goods and as such requiring a licence for which purpose they made a reference to the DGFT authorities. DGFT vide its clarification dated 04/06/1993 opined that, the finished glass beeds being consumer item, were not freely importable. On the above basis the appellants were issued a show cause notice. It is...

Kothi Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT545Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants have been denied refund of Rs. 12.50 lakhs on the ground of unjust enrichment. It is the case of the appellants that initially the annual production capacity was fixed as 2.3 MT under Section 3A for levy of compounded duty and subsequently, it was re-determined as 2.6 MT. Pending re-determination, the appellants had paid higher amount of duty under the compounded levy scheme and the impugned refund relates to the duty payment at a higher rate of compounded levy. The appellants further submit that the sale price of the finished goods has remained the same and that the refund claim has arisen on account of adjustment under Section 3A(5) for which the provisions of unjust enrichment cannot apply.2. Considering the fact that the sale price has not changed and the appellants were paying duty at a fixed rate under the compounded levy scheme without having any relation to the actual clearance, the question of applying the bar of unjust enrichment in such a...