Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR678; 2003(4)BomCR41

ORDERR.G. Deshpande, J.1. Learned Advocate Shri M.M. Vashi appears for respondent No. 1. He waives service. In view of this, objection as regards bhatta is waived.2. These two Appeals against Orders i.e. A.O. No. 160/2003 and A.O. No. 162/2003 are being disposed of by this common order, since facts are mostly identical so far as regards C.A. No. 196 of 2003 in A.O. No. 160 of 2003 and C.A. No. 195 of 2003 in A.O. No. 162 of 2003 are concerned, for the purposes of decision on these applications, the facts as are stated in C.A. No. 196 of 2003 are only being referred to in this Order so as to avoid the repetation.3. Respondent No. 1 Hanil Era Textiles Ltd., initiated Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellants/original defendants. In the above said Civil Suit an application for ex-parte and ad-interim injunction presumably under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 was moved which was marked as Exh...

Stock Exchange Vs. V.S. Kandalgaonkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR274; (2003)181CTR(Bom)30; [2003]261ITR577(Bom); [2003]44SCL254(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. By this Petition, Stock Exchange Mumbai seeks to challenge Notice under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act dated 5th October 1995 as also a prohibitory Order dated 10th May, 1996 under Section 222 of the Income-tax Act served on the petitioner whereby the Stock Exchange is restrained from making any payment of the debt due to Suresh D. Shah, Member - Broker on the Bombay Stock Exchange [BSE] on the ground that the said Broker had failed to pay arrears of income-tax amounting to Rs. 37,48,651.00. In other words, Bombay Stock Exchange is the Garnishee who is prohibited from making payment of the debt to the assessee in default - Suresh D. Shah. Under the said Prohibitory Order dated 10th May, 1996, Stock Exchange Membership Card allotted to the broker for doing business and his accounts in the Books of BSE were attached/frozen. Being aggrieved by the aforestated two Orders, the Stock Exchange has filed this Petition.Facts2. Petitioner is a Stock Exchange recognized ...

Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Film and Shot and anr. Vs. Sundial Communicatio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(5)BomCR404; 2003(3)MhLj695; 2003(27)PTC457(Bom)

A.P. Shah J.1. These are appeals from an order of Bobde J. granting ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs' original work titled 'Krish Kanhaiyya' and proceeding further with broadcasting of their television serial 'Kanhaiyya'. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of dispute, the parties have agreed that Notice of Motion should itself be disposed off at this stage.2. This suit has been brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for breach of copyright and misuse of confidential information. The claim is for various relief's in respect of the plaintiffs' work titled 'Krish Kanhaiyya'. In essence, the plaintiffs' case is as follows. The plaintiff No. 1 is a Company engaged in the business of television programming, video programming, multi media programming and feature films, television serial production etc. It consists of a group of entrepreneurs, who have worked in different televisio...

Fujairah National Shipping Agency, a Company Organised Under the Laws ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom470; 2003(6)BomCR712; 2003(4)MhLj103

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The plaintiff sues for the recovery of an amount of US $ 8298/-, on a claim for the supply of necessaries to a Vessel by the name of m.v. Al Mutawakil. The claim in the suit comprises of a principal sum of US$ 7650.26 and interest of $647.72. The supplies are alleged to have been effected on 2nd April 1997. The erstwhile owner of the vessel was a company known by the name of Al-Mutawakil Shipping Company Ltd., Malta. On 9th April, 1997, the ownership of the vessel was stated to be transferred to the present owners, Rank Shipping Ltd.2. From the averments in the plaint, the case of the Plaintiff is that a supply of bunkers to the vessel, Al Mutawakil, took place in pursuance of a communication received from one 'Delta International Shipping'. In paragraph 2 of the Plaint, the Plaintiff avers that in pursuance of a communication received from Delta International Shipping, the Plaintiff confirmed by its telex dated 2nd April 1997 that it would be making supplies. Th...

Ajcon Capital Markets Ltd. Vs. Maya Rasayan Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR810; 2003(3)MhLj421

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this appeal, the original defendants in summary suit No. 5307 of 1999 challenge the order dated 4th June 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in summons for judgment No. 294 of 2000. The respondents/plaintiffs filed summary suit No. 5307 of 1999. The case of the plaintiffs was that the plaintiffs have given to the defendants as intercorporate loan a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- for a period of two months. According to the plaintiffs, the agreed rate of interest was 27% p.a. Certain shares were also pledged by the defendants with the plaintiffs. The defendants also executed a demand promissory note dated 1st November 1995. The amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants by a cheque dated 3rd November 1995. According to the plaintiffs, in the month of January 1996, the defendants issued two cheques in favour of the plaintiffs for repayment of the loan dated 16th January 1996 and 25th January 1996, but both the cheques were dish...

Sainath Mandir Trust Vs. Vijaya W/O Vithalrao Mandale and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR1063; 2004(2)BomCR375; 2003(4)MhLj187

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellant is the original defendant No. 1, the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are the original plaintiffs and the respondent No. 8 is the original defendant No. 2, (for the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as 'plaintiffs' and 'defendant Nos. 1 and 2') FACTS2. The plaintiff, Vithalrao Motiramji Mandale, had filed the suit for possession and damages against the defendant No. 1 - Trust and defendant No. 2 Vasant Mahadeorao Fartode. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that plot No. 57 was owned by defendant No. 2 Vasant Mahadeorao Fartode and it was carved out of Survey No. 33 and converted into a plot. The plaintiff intended to purchase the said plot and, therefore, he published a Notice in daily 'Matrubhumi' dated 2-10-1982 inviting objections in respect of the said plot and since no objections were received, he purchased it from defendant No. 2 by a registered sale deed dated 14-10-1982 for a total consideration of Rs. 17,000/-. On execution of the ...

Noor Mohamed @ Mohd. Shah R. Patel and 20 ors. Vs. Nadirshah Ismailsha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ985

J.G. Chitre, J.1. For taking the exception and putting the challenge to the order which has been passed by J.M.F.C., Kankavali in the matter of Criminal Case No. 426/96 issuing process against the petitioners or offence punishable under Section 341 read with 34 IPC, the petitioners are praying this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari and quashing the said proceeding.2. The prosecution case in brief can be enumerated as mentioned hereinunder.3. As Harkul Budruk in Kankavali Taluka, District Sindhudrug there is mosque controlled and requited by a public charitable trust, namely, 'Anjuman-E-Khudamul Muslim Harkul Budruk Trust' which has been registered with the office of the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. The said trust looks after the affairs of mosque, school and Kabristan. The petitioners are trustees of the said trust. The said officer is at Mumbai and the branch office is at Harkul Budruk. The mosque in question is called 'Jumma Masjid'. On the day of Ramzan-Idd, as per the allegat...

Essar Steels Limited, Shashi N. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Essar Gujarat Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as EGL), which is a company engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron and hot rolled steel products at its plant in Hazira, set up its Hazira plant in 1989-90 with a capacity to manufacture approximately eight lakh metric tonnes of hot briquette iron (sponge iron) per annum. The principal raw materials for this product are iron ore and iron ore pellets. The appellant company imported DR (direct reduction) grade iron ore pellets due to non-availability of pellets of the desired quality in India.Since Hazira was not a regular port, no standard freight rates were available, therefore EGL approached its sister concern M/s. Essar Shipping Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ESL) to arrange for shipment of iron ore pellets and as per ESL's advice, EGL agreed to import iron ore pellets in vessels hired on charter basis. It was understood between EGL and ESL that EGL would enter into a charter party agreement with ship owners and that EGL woul...

Shri Dinesh Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT956Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the applicants vide order No.C.I/4177/WZB/2002, dated 10-12-02. The issue was whether the imported goods viz. "spirals" were freely importable or whether they required production of a specific licence. The Tribunal in para 2 of the said order held as follows :- "Shri V.S. Nankani places before us the said classification where the preamble shows that the classification was made public only on 25-3-96 and therefore, contents thereof could not apply to the imports covered under the bill of entry dated 12-6-1994. He also shows us the relevant policy at the material time and submits that the goods could not be termed to be restricted items on account of being consumer goods." 2. In this application for rectification of a mistake, it is stated that the date of the Bill of Entry was wrongly submitted and that it should be 12-6-96 and not 12-6-94. On examination of the photocopy of the B/E this is found to be correct. Since the change in the date material...

Anchor Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal before him on holding that the appeal was filed after the prescribed period and that no request for condonation was made. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not give them any notice before dismissal. The appellants show that the appeal was filed in time when holidays were taken into account. This order does not sustain and has to be set aside.2. Ordinarily such appeals would be remanded to the first appellate authority for reconsideration on merits. I find that the issue here is capable of being decided at this stage.3. Although Clause (1) d (v) of the explanation to Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944 specified generating sets of output exceeding 75KVA, Clause (1) c provided for admission of all generating sets, without specifying the output or capacity. Therefore, there was no scope for a narrow interpretation....