Mumbai Court August 2003 Judgments

iridium India Telecom Limited Vs. Motorola Inc. a Corporation and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR511

Bobde S.A., J.1. These are the plaintiff's motions for orders in the nature of attachment before judgment and injunction for obtaining security for a decree that might be passed in the plaintiff's favour.2. Iridium India Telecom Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs', has filed this suit against the defendant No. 1 i.e. Motorola Inc., inter alia, for a declaration that the agreement dated 19-7-1993 with the defendant No. 2 and a supplementary agreement dated 15-9-1994 for purchase of stocks and shares of the defendant No. 2 are void and for a further declaration that another agreement dated 30-11-1995 called 'gateway equipment purchase agreement and a restated agreement dated 10-7-1997 for the same equipment are void. As a consequence thereof, the plaintiff has sought a decree of U.S. $ 120,490,000 with further interest on the principal sum of U.S. $ 90,330,000 relatable to the amount paid by it for purchase of shares and another sum of Rs. 377,21,54,857. The particulars of ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pan Asia Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT1029Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification 175/86 would be applicable to the Centrifugal booster fans manufactured by the respondent and dismissed the department's appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner holding the contrary.2. The reason advanced by the Commissioner (Appeals), that in an earlier order he held that the goods were classifiable in Heading 8414.80 of the tariff and therefore would be entitled to the benefit of the notification, since this heading figures in the schedule to the notification unlike Heading 84.15, is not ques-tioned by the department's appeal. It is not alleged that that order has been set aside. In any event, the classification of the goods which ultimately form part of the airconditioners when presented separately has to be decided on merits. We do not find any ground to interfere....

The Dcit, Spl. Range 18 Vs. Aakrosh Investment and Leasing P.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)90ITD287(Mum.)

1. The appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 10.1.95 of the CIT (A)-XXVI, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment year, 1990-91. "1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that provision of Section 73 read with explanation thereto are not applicable in the assessee company and thereby further erred in directing to allow the set off of losses amounting to Rs. 9,30,946/- incurred in the business of purchase and sale of shares against the other income. The said view is well supported by the decided case by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eastern Aviation and Industries Ltd. v. CIT (A) reported at 208 ITR 1023." "2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in directing to restrict the expenses on earning the dividend income at Rs. 6429/- (being 1% of dividend income) as against Rs. 165097/- worked out by A.O. as attributable to earning of dividend income, w...

Mahendra Harishchandra NaThe Vs. the Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR556; 2004(1)MhLj7

C.K. Thakker, C.J.:1. Rule. Mr. V.A. Gangal, learned Counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent. No.1. Mr. R.M. Patne, learned A.G.P., appears and waives services of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for declaring condition No.2. in Resolution No.218 dated 20th August, 1996 (Exhibit `A') issued by Nashik Municipal Corporation illegal, ultra-vires and unconstitutional. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in 1993, he was appointed as Field Worker, which is a Class IV post. At that time, his educational qualification was Standard X (failed). In November 1997, he had cleared Bachelor of Arts Examination and obtained Degree from Yeshwant Rao Chavan Maharashtra Open University. In May 2000, he had passed M.A. with History and obtained a certificate from Pune University. There was a vacant post of Junior Clerk (Class III) in Nash...

Pandurang Tulshiram Paighan Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj1055

R.S. Mohite, J. 1. Heard Miss Udeshi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. Dangre, APP for the respondents.2. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.3. This is a petition filed for release of the petitioner on furlough leave for a period of two weeks and for quashing and setting aside an order dated 7-2-2003 rejecting the application for grant of furlough leave.4. The brief facts of the case are as under:(a) The present petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Court, Akola, for an offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code vide its judgment and order dated 12-12-1997 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years. (b) On 17-1-2001, the petitioner applied for furlough leave. Since the said application was not considered with urgent dispatch, the wife of the petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 400 of 2001 in this Court. The Division Bench of this Court decided the matter finally by the judgment and order dated 25-2-2002 and after making certain observations came to ...

Otis Elevator Company (India) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 3.13 crores and equal penalty.2. The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite and has not sought adjournment The application was earlier adjourned on 25.7.2003 on the ground that the counsel for the applicant was busy in the Supreme Court. We have therefore read the stay application and other relevant papers and the departmental representative.3. The applicant is a manufacture of lifts, their parts and is also engaged in the maintenance of such lifts. The demands relates to the period from April 1997 to December 2001. Presumably since there no sale of the goods, the applicant determined the duty in terms of Rule 6 (b) (ii) (or Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules 2001 which come into force on 1.7.2001 based upon the cost of manufacture. The notices issued to the applicant alleged that, while determining the manufacturing cost, it had taken into account the administrative overhead and the margin of profit. They alleged that the a...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shreeji Concast Ltd. and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shreeji Concast Ltd, Mono Steel India Ltd and Inducto Ispat Alloys Pvt Ltd were engaged in the manufacture of ingots of steel for which one of the raw materials is mild steel scrap. The assessees were availing of the modvat procedure and availed of the duty paid on the mild steel scrap towards payment of duty on the finished product. The notices issued to them alleged that in respect of some gate passes received by them, the duty shown to have been taken as credit what was received was in fact not scrap but mixture of scrap with other rerollable materials on which no duty was paid. The notice cited statements of suppliers or proprietors or directors of the traders of the materials who purchased the scrap from the ship breakers to say that they had not supplied the entire quantity of scrap shown in the gate passes. In addition, denial of credit and penalty were proposed on these firms as well as their directors. Adjudicating on the notice, the Deputy Commissioner by separate orders ...

Parasrampuria Credit and Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2004)BC135

1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants, being aggrieved by the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Murnbai on Exhibit No.60 in Original Application No. 1723/1999. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the respondent Bank praying for taking on record statement of account, which earlier was not filed by them, albeit with costs to be given to the appellants herein. It appears that in the original application filed by the Bank, the defendants had made an application directing the applicant Bank to file statement of account in compliance to the statement made by the Bank before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Misc. Appeal No. 186 of 2002. It appears that at that time the Bank took stand that statement of account filed along with Exhibit 30 was the statement of account in compliance of that order. Therefore, when, subsequently, the Bank came out w...

Master Rajeev Shankarlal Parmar Alias Pintya and Maharukh Adenwalla Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003CriLJ4522

C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule. Smt. Usha Kejariwal, Additional Public Prosecutor, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents.2. This Writ Petition is filed by Master Rajeev Shankarlal Parmar, petitioner No. 1 through petitioner No. 2, a practising Advocate of this Court, as Public Interest Litigation being Criminal Writ Petition No. 823 of 2003. In the said petition, following prayers have been made:-'(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the First Petitioner's incarceration in Mumbai Central Prison at Arthur Road unlawful and in violation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Constitution of India;(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the second Respondent to produce the first Petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board forthwith;(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct that the First Petitioner be shifted forthwith from the Mumbai Central Prison at Arthur Road to the Observation Home at Umer...

Manohar Balaram Khanavkar and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)126; 2003BomCR(Cri)1394

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. By this appeal, the appellants/accused have challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 29th July, 1991, rendered by IInd Addl.Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag, in Sessions Case No. 201 of 1989. The appellants/accused (for short, 'accused' only) along with one Ashok Khanavkar, original accused No. 6, were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 302, 307 read with Section 149, 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'I.P.C.') and under Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. The original accused No. 6 was acquitted of all the charges, whereas the appellants/accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 read with Section 149 and Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC. The accused persons, however, were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC an...