Mumbai Court October 2004 Judgments

In Re: Ispat Industries Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR94; [2005]58SCL485(Bom)

Vazifdar S.J., J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition for the winding up by the Court of the company Deepak Machineries Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts.2. The petitioner's claim arises in respect of C.R.C.A. sheets sold and delivered by it to the company. The amount due in respect of the said transactions and the mode of payment thereof was settled in terms of a writing dated 23rd April, 1999. It would be convenient to set out all six clauses, which read as under :-'1. The total outstanding as on date is Rs. 1.5 crores (Approximately).2. Mr. Saraf appraised us of the scenario today and informed that during the month of April, he will release payment between Rs. 25 to Rs. 40 lacs.3. Mr. Saraf also indicated that things will improve from May, 1999 onwards and outstanding position will improve.4. Mr. Saraf further indicated that he will make all efforts to clear all outstandings before we resume busin...

Panchhi Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal arose out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant is engaged in processing of MMF and were discharging duly Under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, following the procedure under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules. As per Notification No.19/2000 the appellants are required to pay Rs. 2 lakhs per chamber per month on the chambers of hot air stenter machine installed in their factory. On scrutiny of RT 12 for the months March 2000 to October 2000 it was observed that the appellant short paid Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 59,675/-. As per Rule 96ZQ (3) of Central Excise Rules duty has to be discharged on or before due date i.e. 50% of an amount was to be paid by the 15th of the month and the remaining amount by the end of the month. The act of non payment of duty by the due date is a violation of Rule 96 ZQ(3) and an assessee is liable to pay penalty equal to Central Excise duty payable along with interest @ 24% per annum on outstanding amounts. ...

Heritage Marble Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Briefly the facts are that the appellants imported a consignment of Iranian marble blocks without an import licence and filed a bill of entry for its clearance, No. 000806 dated 25.2.99. The CIF value declared was US$ 100 PMT. This value was accepted by the Customs. The weight declared tallied with the actual weight of the consignment. The consignment was confiscated but was allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 8,50,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 4,50,000/- was also imposed.2. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the lower authority. Hence this appeal.4. Confiscation Under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act is not contested by the Ld Advocate for the appellants. The averments assailing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) are only in regard to calculation of MOP. It is argued that the lower authority while calculating the MOP on blocks took into consideration the market price of marble slabs; that a specific averment before the Commissioner (Appeals...

Gopinath Daulat Dalvi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR224(Bom); 2005(2)BomCR135; [2005(105)FLR148]; 2005(1)MhLj438

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner was employed with the respondent No. 3 as a Driver. He joined the service of Marubeni Corporation, Tokyo with effect from 1st May, 1981. The petitioner's admitted date of birth is 30th June, 1947. While the petitioner was in service Marubeni Corporation which was taken over by respondent No. 3 on 21st May, 1996. On 21st May, 1996 Marubeni Corporation, Tokyo, Japan issued a letter that it had decided to close down its office in India. However, the respondent No. 3 a subsidiary Company had been incorporated on 21st May, 1996 for the purpose of carrying out the business activities in India and the respondent No. 3 had agreed to take over the service of all employees in India of Marubeni Corporation including the petitioner in the same position and on same terms and conditions of service. In view of that the petitioner's services were transferred from Marubeni Corporation to Respondent No. 3 in the same position and on the same terms and conditions of serv...

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Employees Union and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR363; [2005(105)FLR595]; 2005(1)MhLj671

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. The workman represented by respondent No. 1 is employed with the petitioners. He applied to the petitioner for a loan for purchase of motor cycle in terms of the existing rules. In furtherance of this application dated 1-3-1994, company addressed a letter to him dated 22-3-1994. The workman was informed that in the event he did not purchase the vehicle within the period of one month from the date of disposal of the loan, he ought to make arrangements to refund the loan to the Corporation in one lump sum within the period of one month failing which penal interest at an additional rate of 5% above the bank rate would be charged on the loan taken for the period in excess of one month until the amount is refunded and further no further loan for purchase of vehicle will be sanctioned to him for five years from the date of default. The interest on the loan advanced was 2.5% p.a. By letter of 29-6-1994, the petitioners informed the workma...

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and ors. Vs. Fix Transmission Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(105)FLR842]; (2005)IILLJ938Bom; 2005(2)MhLj173

S.U. Kamdar, J. 1. The present petition is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 20-10-2003. By the said order, the learned single Judge has dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant. Some of the material facts of the present case are briefly stated as under :2. The respondent No. 1 is carrying on business of manufacture of rubber belts. The appellant is a Union representing the workmen working in the said respondent-establishment. The appellant is a registered union. There are two other Unions in the said establishment of which one Nagpur Kamgar Union is a recognised union in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Unions Act.3. On or about 29th November, 1993 a settlement was arrived at by the respondent-Company with recognised union - Nagpur Kamgar Union (hereinafter referred as 'NGU'). The appellant was not invited for negotiations and settlement which was arrived at by and between the respondent No. 1 and the said 'NGU'. Accordingly,...

Pralhad Vitthalrao Bhusari Vs. New Ideal Education Society and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR48

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner employee challenges the order of termination issued by respondent No. 1 management terminating him w.e.f. 7-4-1989 and the judgment delivered by School Tribunal on 9th July, 1991 rejecting his appeal. Necessary facts in this respect can be briefly stated as under:2. The petitioner who is science graduate of Nagpur University came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher (untrained) to teach mathematics by respondent No. 1 Educational Institution by its order dated 29-7-1983. Thereafter orders have been issued to him on yearly basis for academic year 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 and lastly for academic year 1988-1989. All these appointment orders are delivered in each academic session and in clear vacancy. The Education Officer i.e. respondent No. 3 also granted approval to this appointment every year on early basis. The petitioner, thus, worked with respondent No. 1 from 1983-19...

N.J. Nayudu and Company Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR716

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Petitioner company which is stated to be registered partnership firm has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging order dated 25th March, 1992 passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur (respondent) in enquiry under Section 7-A of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred at as 'E.P.F. Act'). Grievance of the petitioner, in short, is that the definition of term 'employee' in E.P.F. Act is narrower as compared to the definition of the said term in Employees' State Insurance Act (for short 'E.S.I. Act') and the learned Provident Fund Commissioner has relied upon the ruling delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court upon definition of term employee in E.S.I. Act in the impugned order. The facts in brief necessary for decision of above referred point can be summarised as under :2. The petitioner runs four cinema theatres in Nagpur Municipal limits, they are Liberty Talkies, Variety ...

Ajay Haribhau Jarulkar Vs. Harishchandra Vishnupant Kale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR202; 2005(2)BomCR725

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner/tenant challenges the order dated 14-6-2004 whereby the Additional Collector and Appellate Authority under C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, has refused to condone delay in filing an appeal under Clause 21(2) of Rent Control Order, challenging the order dated 4-4-1998 passed by Rent Controller, Nagpur, rejecting the application for setting aside ex parte order moved by petitioner. The said ex parte order has been passed by Rent Controller on 14-10-1996 in favour of present petitioner/landlord.2. The case of the petitioner/tenant is in brief, as under :He wanted to challenge the order dated 4-4-1998 passed by Rent Controller rejecting the application for setting aside ex parte order moved by him before it. The Rent Controller had passed ex parte order on 14-10-1996 in Revenue Case No. 2778/A-71(2)/94-95 in favour of respondent/landlord and granted pe...

Rajnikant Harlal Shah Vs. Mumtajkha Abbaskha

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR655; 2005(3)BomCR333

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. The petitioner landlord challenges the orders dated 13-3-1989, 30-7-1990 and 23-1-1991 passed by the lower authorities rejecting his application for executing the oral order passed in his favour for restoration of possession. The necessary facts in this respect can be briefly stated as under :The petitioner is the owner of field Survey No. 74/1, area 8 acres 9 gunthas and Survey No. 76/1, 3 acres 21 gunthas of village Kolasa, Taluqa Balapur, District Akola. He initiated proceedings by filling an application against the original tenant Abbaskha under Section 19 read with Sections 30 and 36(2) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) and sought termination of tenancy and for possession of these fields. Abbaskha expired and present respondent is his legal heir. The proceedings were ultimately decided in favour of the petitioner by this Court on 28-1-1976 in Writ Petition No. 1802 of 1973. The...