Mumbai Court January 2004 Judgments

Suresh Fakirchand Mittal Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC141

1. This appeal is sought to be filed by the appellant/original defendant No. 9 Mr. Suresh Fakirchand Mittal, in the capacity as a guarantor, who had executed guarantee deed from time-to-time along with original defendant Nos. 2 to 8. The appellant was arraigned as party defendant No. 9 in the Original Application No. 567/1999 along with other defendants. By the impugned judgment and Order dated 22.1.2003, the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Mumbai allowed the said application in favour of the Bank i.e.respondent No. 1 herein and the defendants were liable to pay to the Bank sum of Rs. 10,03,74,766/- with future interest at the rate of 13.5% per annum with yearly rests from the date of the suit till realization of the amount.2. Being aggrieved, the defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 filed the appeal in this appellate Tribunal, which came to be numbered as Appeal No.106/2003, challenging the impugned judgment and order. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of the a...

Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Vs. I.F.C.i. Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC229

1. This appeal is sought to be filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29th November, 2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal - II Mumbai in Original Application No. 3546 of 2002.By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application of the original applicants namely IFCI Limited, IDBI Limited and ICICI Bank Limited and ordered the defendant No. 1 namely M/s. Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as Karkhana) to pay to the applicant No.1 IFCI Limited a sum of Rs. 60,50,36,648/- with interest on Rs. 57,58,48,802/- at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of filing of the original application till realization. The learned Presiding Officer also ordered the defendant No. 1 to pay to the applicant No. 2 IDBI Limited a sum of Rs. 60,77,57,361/- with intereest on Rs. 57,58,04,597/- at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of filin...

Firoz Mohomedali Mamdani Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ1941; 2004(2)MhLj806

S.S. PARKAR, J.1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of detention of the detenu by name Smt. Dilshad Salim Mamdani under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA ACT'.2. The detenu, a lady, was detained on 7-4-2003 under the provisions of COFEPOSA Act pursuant to the order issued under Section 3(1) of the said Act on 5-4-2003. As per the order of detention it was necessary to issue the order of detention with a view to prevent the detenu from smuggling goods in future.3. The detenu and her husband by name Salim Mohammed Ali Mamdani were apprehended at the Mumbai Airport while departing for Dubai via Baharain by the Gulf Air Flight GF 057. After verifying her travel documents suspicion arose that she along with her husband was carrying some contraband goods. On their personal search they were found carrying US $ 4000 which they had acquired officially under the Basi...

Pramila Wd/O Dhanraj Gaidhane and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR429; 2004(3)MhLj349

S.B. Deshmukh, J. 1. Heard Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Solao, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Respondents No. 1 and 4 are duly served, however, are absent.2. By the consent of the parties, this appeal is being taken up for final hearing at this stage.3. Few facts, in brief, are noted as under :The appellants are the original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 174 of 1996, filed in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara, against the respondents-original defendants. It is alleged by the appellants that one Dhanraj Watuji Gaidhane, was the husband of appellant No. 1 - Pramila and father of appellants No. 2 and 3. According to appellant No. 1, marriage between herself and Dhanraj took place at Wardha, somewhere in the year 1982. The appellants have stated in the plaint that Dhanraj Gaidhane died on 11-6-1994 in a fatal accident. The plaintiffs have also alleged in the plaint that there were two Insurance policies, det...

Association of Engineering Workers Vs. Hindustan Motor Manufacturing C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004(102)FLR154]; (2004)IILLJ790Bom

ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard advocates for the parties. Perused the papers. The petitioner challenges the Award dated May 29, 2001 in Reference Case No. 645 of 1994 by the Labour Court at Mumbai whereby the punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the employee, namely, Kashinath Bhere has been confirmed.2. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the charge sheet came to be issued against the employee on May 1, 1993 and as notice regarding the enquiry was returned with the postal remark as 'unclaimed' by the employee, the domestic enquiry proceeded ex pane and four other persons against whom the common charge sheet was issued. The Enquiry Officer by his report dated July 7, 1993 held the charges levelled against the employee to have been proved and the Disciplinary Authority by its order dated July 16, 1993 while accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer issued the order of dismissal of the employee from service on the ground of misconduct. The dispute having b...

Vasantrao Vishnu Mangore Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR674; 2004(3)BomCR554; (2004)IIILLJ67Bom

C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. In this petition, a policy decision of the State of Maharashtra vide Government Resolution dated February 2, 1999 is challenged. By the said policy decision, the Government has decided that the Government employees whose age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 to 60 years would retire at the age of 58 instead of 60 years.2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that such a decision is arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. It was also contended that no reasons have been given by the Respondent State as to why the age of superannuation was required to be reduced from 60 to 58 years. It was stated that earlier, the age of superannuation was fixed as 60 years on the basis of the recommendation of V Pay Commission and though the said question was not referred to any subsequent Pay Commission, the action has been taken which is improper and illegal. Employees and citizens were never informed as to what weighed with the S...

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited Vs. Wyeth Holdings Corporation a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(30)PTC14(Bom)

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Introduction: The controversy in this appeal revolves around the conflict between two identical trade marks, 'Pacitane' registered trade mark of the respondents and 'Parkitane' unregistered trade mark of the appellants.2. The appellants herein, (original defendants), are aggrieved and affected by the order dated 20.9.2003 in Notice of Motion No. 2138 of 2003, arising out of Suit No. 2299 of 2003, whereby, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clauses (a), (b), and (c), except bracketed portion, in favour of the respondents (original plaintiffs) herein, has been granted. Though by the impugned order, ad-interim order was granted, when the matter came up before us on 2nd December, 2003, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for parties agreed that the notice of motion be treated as having been disposed of by the impugned order. We ordered, thus, appeal to be heard finally at the admission stage.3. Parties assertion: Respondent No. 1 (original plaintiff No. 1) known as ...

Jindal Drugs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT203Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 61,29,476/- and penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs, we found that it was possible to decide this appeal itself at this stage. Hence after waiving pre-deposit of duty and penalty, we proceed to take up this appeal for hearing.2. The demand has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs on the basis that the appellants herein who had imported beta Napthol, Caustic Soda flakes and Sodium Nitrate duty free under VABAL licence violated the condition stipulated under Clause (V)(a) of Notification No.203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992 by availment of input stage credit in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. We have heard both sides. The defence of the importers before the adjudicating authority was that there was no material on record to show that credit had been availed and that factually the appellants did not avail input stage credit and therefore they were eligible to duty free impor...

Shri Giriraj Holdings (P) Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri. S.N. Kantawala, Ld. Advocate was present on behalf of M/s.Union General Co. Ltd. and Shri. H. Dave, Ld. Advocate was present on behalf of M/s. Shri Giriraj Holding P. Ltd. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Union General Co. ltd. submitted that in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CC, Kandla v. Sahil Trends & Ors reported in 2003 (59) RLT 729 (Tri.) the confiscation and the redemption fine imposed on the appellant cannot legally sustain. He submitted that since the goods were not available for confiscation the question of their confiscation and imposition of redemption fine does not arise. He, therefore, contended that the confiscation and imposition of redemption fine be set aside. As regards, M/s. Shri Giriraj Holding P. Ltd. Shri. H.Dave, Ld. Advocate submitted that there is no justification for imposition of such higher penalty on the appellant and he requested that lenient view may be taken in the matter.2. Shri. R.K. Pardeshi, Ld. SDR appe...

R.K. Metafab Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the matter was called none appeared for the appellant. Heard Jt CDR and considered the material. It is found :- a) Appellant was availing the payment of duties under the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on ingots and billets of Non-Alloy Steel manufactured by them during the year 1999-2000 and was required to discharge a sum of Rs. 3,33,334/- in two equal installments by 15^th and last day of each month for the period August 1999 the amount required to be paid latest by 15/08/1999 was deposited on 16/08/99 and for September 1999 the amounts were deposited on 18/09/1999 instead of 15/09/1999. The lower authorities have confirmed the penalty equivalent to 100% of the amounts delayed in deposit payments in bank as above and demanded interest. Hence, this appeal. b) Since August 15^th being the Independence Day and on 15th August 1999 being Sunday was a bank holiday, as per General Clause Act, 1897, payment made in the Bank on 16/08/1999 cannot be delayed p...