Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

P.M.P. Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants have come in the appeal against the following two findings arrived by the lower authorities:- (a) The whole sale dealers can not be considered as belonging to different classes of buyers when they are located in different towns or cities and different discounts are not permissible to be deducted to arrive at the assessable value for excise purposes relying upon Board Circular No. 24/14/93 dated 31.12.93. (b) The price list filed for reduction in prices for the subsequent year were dismissed on the ground that there was no reason for the reduction in prices.2. As regards the issue at Serial No. (a) above the matter is now well settled, in the case of Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. v. Union of India -- 1994 (73) E.L.T.25 (Del). The Order of Delhi High Court, in appeal filed by the Union of India was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court passed the following order. "It is fairly stated that the Civil Appeals must be d...

Susheel Mahadeshwar and Girish Srinivasan Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)99; 2003BomCR(Cri)1340

J.G. Chitre, J. 1. Two petitioners are hereby taking exception to the act of in charge of Cuffe Parade Police station, by which a charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court Esplanade, Mumbai, dated 31/6/1994 for the offence punishable under provisions of Section 143, 145, 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 447 of Indian Penal Code r/w Section 37/135 of Bombay Police Act. They are assailing the act of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance against them for the said offences. 2. Shri Mundargi pointed out that annexures to the charge sheet did not make out a case against these two officers for the offences indicated above. He submitted that the said charge sheet submitted against the present petitioners and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate have to be quashed and these two petitioners be exonerated. He submitted in support of said contention that other persons who were indicted for these offences had pleaded guilty and t...

Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-t ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR367; (2003)184CTR(Bom)527; [2004]265ITR114(Bom); 2003(4)MhLj806

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal dated 20/8/2001 in ITA No. 9987/Bom/92 in respect of Assessment Year 89-90, the assessee has come by way of appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This appeal involves interpretation of an Entry in Appendix-I - 'Depreciation Table', which prescribes Table of Rates at which depreciation is admissible. The entry reads as under:'III. MACHINERY AND PLANT(1) Machinery and plant other than those covered by sub-items (2) and (3) below(2) (i) Aeroplanes - Aeroengines(ii) Motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis used in a business of running them on hire.'FACTS:2. Return of income was filed on 6/10/1989 by the assessee declaring its total income of Rs. 73,47,279/- as profits under Section 115J. The assessee is a leasing and financing company having its income from lease rent, bill discounting and service charges. During the course of hearing, certain Issues were raised. On of the Issues was concerning depreciat...

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Bom)491; [2004]265ITR119(Bom); 2003(3)MhLj876

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20/08/2001 passed by the Tribunal in Income-tax Appeal No. 9987/Bom/92 for Assessment Year 1989-90, the Department has come by way of appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act. This appeal is a cross appeal to Income-tax Appeal No. 77 of 2002, which appeal was preferred by the assessee whereas, the present appeal is preferred by the Department. FACTS: 2. The assessee is a leasing and financing company having its income from lease rent, bill discounting and service charges. During the course of hearing before the AO, certain Issues were raised. One of the Issues was concerning depreciation. The assessee was allowed normal depreciation on trucks, buses and motor vans leased out to its customers. However, the assessee had claimed Higher Depreciation at 50% of the written down value on the said vehicles. As stated in our judgment in Income-tax Appeal No. 77 of 2002, the Tribunal took the view that the assessee was not...

Faber-castell Aktiengesellschaf(Sic), a Company Organised Under the La ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR139; 2003(6)BomCR65; 2003(4)MhLj264; 2003(27)PTC538(Bom); [2003]45SCL362(Bom)

S.A. Bobde, J. 1. This is a Plaintiffs Motion for an injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs registered design of a marker pen or a highlighter sold by the plaintiffs under the trade mark 'TEXTLINER'. The plaintiffs also claim an injunction restraining the defendants from passing-off their highlighter or marker pen under the trade mark 'TEXTLINER' by use of the impugned trade mark 'TEXTLINER' and by adopting the almost identical configuration, shape, design, colour scheme and get-up for their product.2. The plaintiffs are proprietors of registered design No. 174429 dated 1.8.1997. This registration is under the Designs Act, 1911. It was issued on 12.1.1998. The Certificate of Registration contains a pictorial representation of the plaintiffs highlighter and states as follows:'The novelty resides in the shape and configuration of the line marker in particular in the cap portion C and the ornamental surface pattern P. as illustrated.'There is an ornamental su...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. (Now Know ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]262ITR55(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia J. 1. The Department has come by way of reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85. The questions referred to us for our opinion are as follows :'Question I: Whether the Tribunal was right in law in allowing maintenance expenses incurred by the assessee on the flat owned by it and provided to its employees ?'Answer : In view of our judgment in the case of Citibank N. A. v. CIT decided on March 5, 2003, vide Income-tax Reference No 5 of 1994 : [2003]262ITR47(Bom) , we answer the above question No. I in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee.'Question II : Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the maintenance expenses incurred by the bank on its ownership flat did not result in the provisions of perquisites to the concerned employees and that the said expenses should not be considered for computing disallowance under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act ?...

Kamlakar S/O Lachhayya Ollala Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj400

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for theparties. Perused the records.2. Since the common questions of law and facts arise in both these appeals,they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. In both these appeals, the appellant challenges, the orders passed by theAdditional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, remanding the appellants to custodybeyond the period of 90 days from the date of arrest of the appellants on thevarious grounds, inter alia contending that the exercise of powers of remand bythe Additional Sessions Judge to be ab initio bad in law of in view of theprovisions of law contained in Section 49 of the Prevention of TerrorismAct,2002 (hereinafter called as 'POTA') as well as the law settled by the ApexCourt on the point of indefeasible right of the accused to get released on bail onaccount of default on the part of the investigating agency to submit the chargesheet within a period of 90 days and failure to get such period exten...

Asha Bhosle Vs. Magnasound (India) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR892; [2005]127CompCas375(Bom); (2003)4CompLJ70(Bom); 2003(4)MhLj949; [2004]50SCL36(Bom)

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondent company is engaged principally in the business of production of audio and video cassettes and compact discs. The petitioner is a well-known artist who has given play back music to several movies and also has sung various songs for different audio and video cassette and compact disc producers. Albums of certain songs sung by the petitioner were made by the respondent company for royalty amounts to be paid to the petitioner on sale of such albums. According to the petitioner, though several albums cassettes and compact discs of the songs of the petitioner's were sold and the price was received by the respondent company, still it did not make the payment of the amount of royalty due to her. The petitioner therefore, filed the Summary Suit No. 1873 of 2003 against the respondent company for the recovery of Rs. 66,74,780/- being the value of the royalty for the sales made till then and for interest thereon. In the said ...

Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and Indeminity Association L ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR537(Bom); 2003(6)BomCR275

F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The petitioners have described themselves as nonprofit making mutual ship owners insurance association who provide insurance cover to their members. The petitioners have been constituted by and comprise ship owners themselves. Each member makes proportionate contribution to the club fund and all claims made against any member by third parties are settled by the petitioners from out of the said fund after scrutiny. The case of the petitioners is that one Faisal A1 Suwaidi is an individual concerned with the ownership and shares in various vessels as described in paragraph three of the petition. It is also averred that Mr. Suwaidi has represented/held himself out to be and acted in the capacity of the owner/individual concerned with the ownership of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as the shares in the vessel. The petitioners had invoked the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court for recovery of assets described as Insurance premium not only in respect of the said...

Prithviraj Ambalal Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)9; III(2003)BC613; 2003BomCR(Cri)1713

B.B. Vagyani, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, taken up for final hearing forthwith. 2. In all the criminal writ petitions, common question is raised and, therefore, all these criminal writ petitions are disposed of by common order. 3. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 43/2003 has filed a private criminal complaint (RCC No. 409 of 1989) on 1.9.1989 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Now this case is renumbered as SCC No. 975 of 1996, which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad and practically ripe for recording oral evidence. 4. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 44 of 2003 has filed a private criminal complaint (RCC No. 12 of 1990) on 3.1.1990 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Now this case is renumbered as SCC No. 1976 of 1996, which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad and practically ripe for hearing. 5. The pe...