Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

i.F.C.i. Ltd. Vs. U.T.i. Bank Ltd.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2004)BC142

1. This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant No. 1 being aggrieved by the order dated 2.2.2003 passed by the learned Presi-ding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Mumbai on Exhibit No.6 in Original Application No. 5/2003. By the impugned order the learned Presiding Officer partly allowed the application made by the respondent/original applicant UTI Bank Limited, granting relief of injunction, etc. as prayed for against the present appellant and further directed the defendant No. 1 to disclose on oath details of all amounts already received/realised from each of the respondents and to hand over the same to the applicant. The defendants, their servants, agents, officials and representatives, etc. were restrained from receiving any further amounts from the respondents and the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 who were joined in the original application were ordered to pay the amount due and payable by each of them to the applicant directly. The applicant UTI Bank Limited is...

Star Chemicals (Bombay) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)79TTJ(Mum.)1002

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXXVII, Bombay, dt. 15th Jan., 1997, for asst. yr. 1992-93.2. Ground No. 1 is not pressed by the learned counsel of the assessee, hence dismissed. "CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 8,66,989 under Section 32AB of the IT Act in respect of unserviceable and unusable JCB excavator loader scrapped during the accounting year and the scrap value deducted from the block of assets under Section 32 of the Act and as such the deduction be allowed under Section 37 of the Act as a matter of commercial expediency as a prudent businessman would do." 4. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee had purchased JCB excavator loader in the year 1987 relevant to asst. yr.1988-89, but the assessee found the same unserviceable and unusable.Accordingly, the assessee substituted the same by purchasing another loader in the relevant accounting period and the unserviceable JCB excavator loader was sol...

Smoke Affected Residents' Forum Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater B ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2003)ACC5; 2004(2)ALLMR769; 2003(5)BomCR825

ORDERC.K. Thakker, C.J.1. All the above Notices of Motion have been taken out by the Applicants for the reliefs prayed therein, inter alia, seeking extension of time granted by an order passed by a Division Bench on October 17, 2001 and again extended by a Division Bench by an order dated December 18, 2002. 2. Notice of Motion No. 150 of 2003 is taken out by Vahan Bachav Kriti Samiti, Brihan Mumbai Tempo Malak Sangh and Bus Owners Sangh, for modification of the order dated 18th December, 2002 and allowing contract carriage buses, tempos, trucks, trailers and other vehicles to convert their engines into Euro-II (Bharat Stage II). A further prayer is also made to direct Regional Transport Authorities not to cancel registration of transport vehicles which are more than fifteen years old which have not been converted to run on CNG/LPG fuel. Similar prayers have been made in other Notices of Motion also. In Notice of Motion No. 164 of 2003, a prayer is made to review the order passed by the...

Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR319; [2004]118CompCas337(Bom); (2004)1CompLJ447(Bom)

D.G. Karnik, J.1. The petitioner herein Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited, has two wholly owned subsidiary companies viz. Saurashtra Paints Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'first transferor company') and GNP (Madras) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'second transferee company') A scheme of arrangement (for short 'the scheme') was proposed by the first transferor company as well as second transferor company proposing their amalgamation and their merger into the petitioner company. Under the scheme of amalgamation, all the assets and liabilities of the first transferor company as well as second transferor company are to vest in the petitioner company. The whole of the share capital of the first transferor company as well as second transferor company is held by the petitioner company which is the transferee company and no shares are to be issued to the shareholders of the first and second transferor companies whose shares are to stand cancelled on amalgamation. Thus, the scheme does ...

Jaisingh S/O Asharfilal Yadav and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1606; 2003(3)MhLj866

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Perused the records. 2. The petitioners by the present petition seek to challenge the constitutionality of the provisions of law contained in the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act') allegedly declaring the acts committed prior to its enforcement to be the offences under the said Act as being violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, seek to quash the proceedings against the petitioners initiated under the said Act allegedly on the basis of the acts committed by the petitioners prior to enforcement of the said Act. 3. Though the petition was filed on various grounds and even more grounds were added by way of amendment on two occasions, the challenge in the course of arguments was restricted to the ground of unconstitutionality of the expression 'within the preceding ...

Rajneesh Aggarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(157)ELT26(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J. 1. The petitioner/ a sole proprietor of M/s. Mahendra Impex filed this petition challenging the alleged unlawful/illegal withholding of clearance of the Ball Bearings imported by the petitioner on the basis of apprehended undervaluation. The petitioner has also challenged the Notification No. 70/89, dated 1st March, 1989 incorporated at Exh. 'G' to the petition and prayed for declaration of nullity thereof. The petitioner by way of interim relief had claimed that, pending the disposal of the petition, the respondents be ordered and directed to grant clearance of the goods covered by the bills of entry at Exh. 'E-1' to 'E-8' without in anyway subjecting to enhancement or loading but upon the petitioner's executing proper security. This Court while entertaining this petition granted rule and was pleased to grant interim relief in favour of the petitioner in terms of the minutes of order dated 25th May, 1990. The respondents were directed to allow the clearance of the goods ...

Biddle Sawyer Limited Vs. Chemical Employees Union and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(5)BomCR125

Mhatre Nishita, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the Award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 29-1-1999 in Reference (II) No. 31 of 1999. This Award is in respect of general demands such as pay scales to be paid, classification, service increments, dearness allowances, leave, etc. payable to the workmen employed in the administrative section of the petitioner-company and the workmen employed in the factory. The Award has been principally assailed on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error by not considering the principles as delineated by the Apex Court in the matter of wage fixation and that while considering the demands of the workmen, the Tribunal has ignored the principle of industry-cum-region and has not considered the total wage packet which would be payable to the workmen. The other contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Award has been made applicable from the date of the demand, that is, January 1994 and this has caused a tremendous bu...

Sheshrao Nivrati Surwase Vs. Nilkanth Jyotiba Gaikwad and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR784

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. The Counsel for the petitioner orally prays for deletion of respondent No. 3. Prayer granted, respondent No. 3 stands deleted.3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties.4. Mr. Rodge, Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, waives service for the said respondents, and Mrs. Akolkar, Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, waives service for the respondents.5. The petitioner instituted an election petition under section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, and prayed for a relief for setting aside the declaration of election in favour of the returned candidates viz. the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In the election petition, multifold grounds are raised touching the corrupt practice allegedly committed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in collusion with the Returning Officer. Neither issues are framed nor any evidence is led. At a very early st...

In Re: Scheme of Amalgamation of Saurashtra Paints Ltd.,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR473; (2003)105BOMLR767

D.G. Karnik, J.1. The petitioner herein Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited, has two wholly owned subsidiary companies viz. Saurashtra Paints Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'first transferor Company) and GNP (Madras) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'second transferee Company'). A scheme of arrangement (for short 'the scheme') was proposed by the first transferor Company as well as second transferor Company proposing their amalgamation and their merger into the petitioner Company. Under the Scheme of Amalgamation, all the assets and liabilities of the first transferor Company as well as second transferor Company are to vest in the petitioner Company. The whole of the share capital of the first transferor Company as well as second transferor Company is held by the petitioner Company which is the transferee Company and no shares are to be issued to the shareholders of the first and second transferor Companies whose shares are to stand cancelled on amalgamation. Thus, the scheme does ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Morakhia Metals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri. M.H. Sheikh, Learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that since the goods were not entered in the RG-1 register, the adjudicating authority has rightly confiscated the same and imposed penalty on the appellants.2. Shri. V.K. Jain, Learned C.A appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in para 3 of the show cause notice it is mentioned that the goods in question were seized from the factory on 8.5.1992. He drew my attention to the statement of Shri. Piyushkaran Shyamkaran Vyas dated 8.5.1992 wherein he has clearly stated that the goods in question were finished in the late mid-night of 07.05.92 and early morning of 08.05.92. He further clarified that the goods in question were not entered in statutory record because he was not able to go to the factory in the next day morning from his residence due to illness of his father. Ld. C.A. also drew my attention to the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he has clearly recorded that in his opinion th...