Mumbai Court August 2003 Judgments

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Garware Shipping Corporation ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR88; 2003(3)ARBLR523(Bom); 2003(6)BomCR1; 2004(1)MhLj226

R.M. Lodha, J.1. On 3rd October, 1984, the petitioner-Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (for short 'O.N.G.C') entered into time five charter party agreement for supply of vessels with the first respondent (for short 'owner') initially for a period of 60 months and subsequently extended from time to time on the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. The said agreement provided for Arbitration. It appears that O.N.G.C. on 18th August, 1988 wrote a letter to the owner inter alia making certain deductions from amount due and payable to them. The deductions were made on account of the excess hire charges having been paid to the owner and were in respect of the invoice dated 30th June, 1988 to 31st December, 1988 for a sum of Rs. 65,37,733. The case of the O.N.G.C, is that on 14.08.1991, the owner for the said deductions, invoked Arbitration clause and appointed Mr. K. Seshadri, Southern Petrochemicals Industries Ltd., Shipping Division, East Coast Chambers, Madras as an Arbitra...

Roopkala Export Corpn. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR656; 2004(165)ELT26(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Petition taken up for final hearing by consent of parties.2. In this case, the Revision Application filed by the Petitioners was dismissed by the Joint Secretary of the Government of India vide order dated 19th April, 2002. By the said order, the Joint Secretary, Government of India had upheld the orders passed by the authorities below and confirmed the demand for recovery of rebate of duty wrongly granted to the Petitioners. Challenging the said order, the present petition has been filed.3. The facts having bearing on the subject-matter of the present petition are as follows :On the basis of the intelligence gathered that the Petitioners have fraudulently claimed and obtained rebate of the Central Excise duty on the fabrics exported during the period 1992 to 1995, the Excise Authorities searched the premises of the Petitioners and seized incriminating documents found therein. During the course of investigation, statements of several pers...

Kalpana Bhandari and ors. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR15; 2004(1)BomCR663; [2005]125CompCas804(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioners have sought for reliefs against the first respondent in following terms :-'(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the 1st respondent, ordering and directing the 1st respondent to :i) forthwith direct the 2nd and/or 3rd respondent to withdraw the offer dated 5th June, 2003 (Exhibit G hereto);ii) forthwith direct the 2nd respondent to cease and desist from making an offer for acquiring from investors/shareholders the shares of the 3rd respondent at a price less than Rs. 57/- per share (or the appropriate price computed on the basis of the principles under section 73 of the Companies Act, 1956) or such other higher price that may be determined pursuant to a fair valuation of shares conducted after requiring an independent audit to be conducted into the accounts of the 2nd and the 3rd respon...

Bharat Pandharinath More Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ205

ORDERP.S. Brahme, J.1. Applicant-Bharat Pandharinath More was tried for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, Court No. 7 in Regular Criminal Case No. 1371 of 1996 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, by his order dt. 12-10-1998, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant challenged this order of conviction and sentence passed against him in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1998 before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal, by his order dt. 18-10-1999, confirmed conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and modified the sentence by reducing substantive sentence to simple imprisonment for two months and also sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo further simple impriso...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mukesh Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1039Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The counsel for the respondent agrees that, in the light of the first proviso under Section 35B(1) of the Act, no appeal would lie to the Tribunal against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order relating to goods exported without payment of duty.2. Thus, the Tribunal's order, having been passed in ignorance of the law, cannot be upheld, even though neither side pointed this out, when the appeal was decided.3. The order under reference is accordingly recalled and the appeal ordered to be returned to the appellant....

The Sidheshwar Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 6,58,739/- and penalty of Rs. 70,000/- I find that it is possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage.Hence after waiving pre-deposit of duty and penalty I proceed to take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. The duty demand has been confirmed by applying the provisions of Rule 57CC which according to the appellants are not attracted as the goods in question, namely, ethyl alcohol (rectified spirit) on which the duty demand has been confirmed, were exported. I find that the lower appellate authority has held that sufficient proof of export of goods in question was not produced before him. Para 13 of the impugned order which is relevant in this connection is reproduced below: "13. It is evident from the photocopies of the clearance documents viz. Invoices issued under Rule 52 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 that no duty had been paid by the Appe...

Mirabai Shivaji Rote Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Department o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR22; 2004(1)BomCR85; 2003(4)MhLj889

C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. All these three petitions have been filed by the petitioners for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside land acquisition proceedings and final Award dated 23rd September, 1986, by which the land of the petitioners has been acquired.2. When the matters came up for admission hearing, notice was issued by us on 27th June, 2003 and was made returnable after four weeks. It was clarified in the order of notice that the matters will be finally disposed of on the returnable date. The respondents then appeared and an affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of State authorities by Special Land Acquisition Officer, National Highway Project, Nashik as also by the Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhameshwar Canal Division, Vaijapur.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since Award was not made within a period of two years from the date of publication of notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referre...

H.M.P. Engineers Ltd. and ors. Vs. Ralies India Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR24; 2003(4)MhLj931

A.P. Shah, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties appeals are taken up for final hearing. Cross objections filed by the respondents are taken on record.2. Appeal No. 556 of 2003 is directed against the order of Rebello, J. dismissing the notice of motion seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the '1996 Act', which was earlier filed before the Delhi High Court and which was returned to the appellants herein for filing before the appropriate court. The appellants wanted that period to be excluded for computing the period of limitation under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 by recourse to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As the delay has not been condoned, the petition under Section 34 came to be dismissed. Appeal No. 555 of 2003 is preferred against the dismissal of the petition. The principal question which falls for our determination is whether the provi...

Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant imported in 1995 one consignment each of Reofos-50 and Tetra bromo-bisphonl A and cleared them in terms of the exemption contained in notification 88/94. The exemption contained in the notification is subject to the importer producing evidence of end use of the goods. The importer therefore executed a bond for each consignment, supported by bank guarantee in January 1995. In April 1995, followed by a reminder in September of that year, the appellant wrote to the Assistant Commissioner, stating that while it consumed part of these materials, it could not continue with the rest because of the stoppage of production and financial difficulties, and asking for extension of time. In January 1996, the Assistant Commissioner over the appellant, asked it to revalidate the bank guarantee that has been executed for six months, if the end use certificate could not be submitted. The appellant submitted the bank guarantee valid up to 15.6.1996. However, by orders passed in April 19...

Shri Manohar Gunaji Anubhawne Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Shri Ra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]120CompCas94(Bom); [2004(101)FLR269]; (2004)IILLJ680Bom; 2004(1)MhLj346; [2004]52SCL536(Bom)

J.A. Patil, J.1. The petitioner was tried in Cri. Case No. 148/S/1994 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai, who convicted him of the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer S.I. 15 days. The learned Magistrate further directed the petitioner to vacate the premises of the respondent company within 3 months. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Cri. Appeal No. 145/2002 in the Sessions Court, Mumbai but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the same and directed the petitioner to hand over premises to the respondent company on or before 31.3.2003. The petitioner has therefore, filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Cr.P. Code to challenge both these orders.2. The above mentioned complaint was filed by Ramnath Gorakhnath Ghag, who was the relevant time working as security officer in the Bombay Dye...