Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Central Bank of India Vs. Roofit Industries Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR569; IV(2004)BC363; 2004(3)BomCR712; (2004)1CompLJ473(Bom)
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This application has been moved by the Central Bank of India with a prayer that the court vacate an ex parte order dated 15 October, 2003 passed on an application for the grant of a stay under Section 391(6) of the Companies Act 1956 ('the Act'). On 15 October, 2003, on an application made by Roofit Industries Ltd., the respondent herein, stating that the company was proposing a scheme of compromise/arrangement with its secured and unsecured creditors, an order was passed in terms of minutes. The minutes which were tendered before the court, inter alia, provided that six months thereafter, the company would hold a meeting of the secured and unsecured creditors for considering the scheme of compromise or arrangement. On the same date, an order was prayed in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (o) of Company Application (Ldg.) No. 880 of 2003 which was in the following terms :(a) That till the sanction of the scheme/arrangement, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an...
Vijay Krishna Kumbhar Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Bom129; 2004(2)ALLMR31; 2004(5)BomCR904; 2004(2)MhLj636
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. P.M. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. R.G. Ketkar, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 4, 7 and 9. Mr. S.S. Hardikar, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Mr. A.K. Baheti, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 8.2. In the facts and circumstances and with the consent of learned counsel, the matter was taken up for final hearing forthwith.3. This petition is filed by the petitioner claiming to be pro bono publico for an appropriate writ, direction or order ordering Pune Municipal Corporation, respondent No, 2 herein, to cancel sham and bogus lease executed by the Corporation in favour of respondent No. 6 by directing the Corporation to issue tenders by calli...
Prema Bangar Swamy Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1296; 2004(2)MhLj993
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The Petitioner herein is a resident of Chennai and on the date of filing of this petition i.e. on 22-8-2003 she was in custody of Yerawada Central Prison, Pune. The petition places on record a very sorry state of affairs inasmuch as it is pointed out therein that in spite of her acquittal in NDPS Special Case No. 16 of 1991 by the Special Court in Mumbai and in spite of that order having been confirmed in appeal, by dismissing the appeal filed by Respondent No. 3 - Narcotics Control Bureau, which appeal bearing No. 484 of 1995 was dismissed by the High Court on 13-12-2000, the petitioner continued to be retained in custody. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, invokes Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution and seeks to challenge this illegal detention. This is prayer Clause (a) of this petition. In fact, Ms. Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, informs, on a query from the Court, that she happened to visi...
Dayanand B. Nayak Vs. Ketan K. Tirodkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2177
ORDERB.H. Marlappale, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ for quashing and setting aside the proceedings initiated by the first respondent and registered as Misc. Application No. 225 of 2003 before the Designated Court at Mumbai under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short MCOCA). The petitioner is presently working as Police Sub Inspector attached to the Crime Investigation Unit of crime branch, Andheri of Mumbai Police. Whereas the first respondent claims to be a journalist and associated with the petitioner in the alleged organised crime under MCOCA as has been set out in the complaint dated 6th October, 2003 addressed to Shri Shankar Kamble, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Mumbai with copies to different authorities, overseas as well as within the country.2. On submission of the said complaint dated 6th October, 2003, the first respondent (he...
NitIn Shankar Kadkol Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: I(2004)DMC695; 2004(2)MhLj767
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order passed in court-martial proceedings and Judicial Review of Trial by the Chief of Naval Staff whereby the petitioner was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of his wife and he was also directed to be dismissed with disgrace from Naval Service.2. The petitioner was working as an Engineering Mechanic, Ist Class on INS Angre in the Indian Navy. A charge was framed by the Commodore. Commanding Officer, INS Angre dated 13-12-1996 in which it was alleged that (a) on 29-1-1994 while he was residing at 28, Khukri Hostel, Navy Nagar, Colaba, he subjected his wife-Padma to cruelty and harassment with a view to coerce her and her relatives to meet his unlawful demand of cash etc. and thereby committed an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957 and (b) that on 29-1-1994 between 20...
Pandurang Subrao Dhabugade and anr. Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR858; 2004(4)BomCR172; (2004)106BOMLR328; 2004(2)MhLj660
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. P.A. Pol, learned Counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. V.P. Malvankar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 7. Mr. S.A. Ingawale, learned Counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 5. Though served, respondent No. 6 has not appeared.2. The petitioners, who claim to be ex-Directors and Members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Tasgaon, Dist. Sangli, and as such interested in proper management and administration of the Market Committee, have approached this Court for an appropriate writ, direction or order praying for quashing and setting aside an order dated 26th February, 2003 passed by the Administrator, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Tasgaon, respondent No. 2 herein, appointing respondent No. 5 to be the Secretary of the said Committee.3. The case of the ...
Mahavir Medical Research Centre Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT695Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Vide order No. C-III/158/WZB/2002 dated 15/11/2002 the bench directed pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,35,300/- (100% of the duty demand confirmed by the Commissioner) by 30^th November,2002 and to report compliance by 5/12/2002 and waived pre-deposit of the penalty subject to pre-eposit of the duty amount as shown above. The applicants applied for modification; the modification application was disposed of by order No. CIII/397/WZB/2003 dated 05/03/2003 by extending the period for pre-deposit by one month. The applicants/importers moved the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay against the pre-deposit order and by order dated 16/06/2003 in Writ Petition No. 1150 of 2003 set aside the Tribunal's stay order and remanded the case to the Tribunal with direction to re-hear and decide the application under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. This is how the application has come up for hearing before us.2. We have heard both sides and find substance in the applicant's contention that on confiscatio...
Bechtel International, Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT726Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 83,73,780/- and grant stay against its adjustment from the revenue deposit till the final disposal of the appeal, arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the order of the lower authority and allowed the revenue appeal.2. The applicant imported second hand machinery on re-export basis from their sister concern, M/s. Bechtel Equipment Services, Batam Island, Indonesia. Clearance of the goods was sought under two bills of entry.The applicant declared the price of the aforesaid machinery on the basis of a chartered engineer's certificate issued in Indonesia. The chartered engineer's certificate indicated a price of US$ 4,660,072.86 FOB. The customs department wanted an independent confirmation of this and directed the applicant to have the valuation done by SGS. Meanwhile the goods were provisionally assessed enhancing the FOB value by US$ 146,000 and accepting a revenue deposit @ 20% of the provi...
Shamvik Glasstech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT470Tri(Mum.)bai
1. According to the applicant an obvious and patent error arises on the face of the record of the final order of the Tribunal inasmuch as the plea regarding non-applicability of the extended period of limitation has not been considered. Learned counsel while fairly admitting that there is no recording in the Tribunal's order that such a plea was raised by the appellants, yet drew our attention to para 7.4 of the appeal memorandum where the plea has been specifically raised and to the synopsis filed at the time of hearing of the appeal where also the plea has been raised. He therefore submits that the application may be allowed and the appeal may be listed for re-hearing.2. The prayer is opposed by the learned SDK on the ground that (a) there is nothing on record to show that such a plea was argued; (b) the order was dictated in the Court as was the practice in that particular court and therefore it was open to the appellants to point out to the bench that the plea regarding time bar n...
Eastern International Hotels Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: (2005)93ITD233(Mum.)
1. As the above appeals are inter-related and involve common points, so we are disposing them off by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITA No. 1338/B/94 and 2229/B/94 are cross appeals by assessee and revenue respectively for assessment year 1991-92 and are directed against the order of CIT (A), Mumbai dated 27.01.1994.3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records including the written submissions of assessee furnished on record before me.4. First, we take up ITA No. 1338/B/94. The assessee-appellant originally raised as many as five grounds of appeal constituting single issue disputing the learned CIT (A)'s impugned order in not allowing deduction claimed by assessee under Clause (iii) of explanation below Sub-section (1A) of Section 115-J. However, the learned AR of assessee has furnished concised ground of appeal raising a sole ground, which is as under:- "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »