Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Paradigm Hotels Private Ltd. Vs. Edc Limited (a Government of Goa Fina ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR501

ORDERD.G. Karnik, J.1. In pursuance to a notice before admission issued by this Court on 25th March, 2004. the respondent has appeared and filed affidavit-in-reply. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties extensively and are disposing of the petition at the stage of admission itself, with the consent of the learned Counsel.2. By this petition the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondent to forthwith accept the petitioner's tender for purchase of the property for Rs. 2,70,00,000/- only,3. The respondent is a Government Corporation governed by the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act. It sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- to M/s. Anderson Marine (hereinafter referred to as 'the borrower'). An amount of approximately Rs. 6,98,00,000/- (inclusive of interest) was outstanding as in November, 2003. As the borrower failed to repay the loan as per the ...

Kaira Can Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 for short payment of duty of Rs. 29,82,935/- in contravention of Rule 9 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 (duty amount stands paid), we find that it is possible to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so, after waiving pre-deposit, with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants cleared printed/lacquered sheets of different types to their sister units on the value determined by taking into consideration only the manufacturing cost and normal profit instead of determining the value as per Rule 9 which provided that duty was to be paid at 115% of the cost of production (Rule 9 w.e.f. 01/07/2000).While adjudicating the case the Commissioner held that the extended period of limitation was not available to the department on the ground that even if they paid higher duty they were entitled to ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Kiran Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT288Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has set aside the order for confiscation of ICs of foreign origin on the ground that the goods are not notified items, under the provisions of Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 and Revenue has not been able to produce any documentary evidence on record to supports the allegation and finding of the said goods being of smuggled nature. The Revenue in their memorandum of appeal are contending that the statement of the respondent admits that the goods are of foreign origin and in the absence of production of any documents showing legal importation of the same, it has to be presumed that the goods are smuggled. I do not agree with the above contention of the learned J.D.R. In respect of non-notified items, the burden to prove the smuggled nature of the goods, by production tangible evidence, is upon the Revenue. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show the tainted character of the ICs in question. Even the statement of the res...

G.C. Industries, Ganapati Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT206Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide order No. C-I/2727 to 2734/WZB/2003 dated 24/10/2003 the Tribunal held that the benefit of deemed credit is not admissible to the Respondents/assessees, set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeals of the Revenue following the larger bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Digambar Foundry v. CCE 2000 (118) ELT 85 wherein it has been held that re-rollers, whose aggregate value of clearances in a financial year exceeded Rs. 75 lakhs, are not eligible to the benefit of deemed credit under the order dated 01/03/1994.2. The applicants seek recall of the Tribunal's final order on the ground that they did not receive any intimation about the hearing and therefore could not get an opportunity to argue the question of jurisdiction. According to the applicants the show cause notices issued in terms of Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules by the Superintendent of Central Excise and answerable to the Additional Collector of Central Excise is wi...

Anant Tukaram Patil Vs. Lata Eknath Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR182; 2004(5)BomCR89; 2004(3)MhLj376

V.C. Daga, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith.By consent, petition is heard finally.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 12th November, 2003 passed by the Small Causes Court at Mumbai in Interim Notice No. 4099 of 2003 in R.A.E. and R. Suit No. 9/15 of 1998, whereby the interim notice seeking amendment to the plaint came to be dismissed.The Facts:3. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as under : That the plaintiff has filed suit for possession of the suit premises being room No. 2 located on the first floor of the House No. 100/B situated at Navnit Chowk, Worli Koliwada, Worli, Mumbai-400 025, contending that the defendant is a tenant; who did not pay arrears of rent and permitted increases from March, 1994 till the date of filing of the suit as such he has rendered himself liable for eviction from the suit premises under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.4. On being noticed, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement contending that the suit...

In Re: Bhilosa Synthetics (P) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]53SCL400(Bom)

ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioner Company, Bhilosa Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'Petitioner-Company' or the 'Transferor-Company' or 'BSPL'). In fact the provisions of Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for obtaining sanction of their scheme of Amalgamation with Bhilosa Tex-N-Twist Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'Transferee-Company' or 'BTPL'). The petitioner-company's office is situated at 122, 2nd floor, Trishla Building, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai. Both the companies have placed on record the details of their authorised share capital, as on 31st March, 2003 based on Auditor's report, as of that date, with detailed summarised financial position.2. In pursuance, to the objects, as set out in the Memorandum of Articles of Association, of both the companies, they have decided to propose, the Scheme of Amalgamation in question. The whole purpose of such scheme is that, as the nature of business of both the companies arc identical and are under common management with common sharehold...

Hanmantappa Murtyappa Vijapure Since Deceased by His Lrs. Sunanda Hanu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ3001; 2004(3)MhLj410

ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J. 1. This appeal against conviction was filed by the original accused Hanmantappa Murtyappa Vijapure challenging his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was working as a clerk and when the complainant went to him for getting solvency certificate, he demanded bribe. A trap was laid, he was caught and then came to be convicted. However, during the pendency of the appeal accused died and his appeal is continued by his legal heirs who are the wife and children of the original accused. Appeal is continued by them because due to conviction of the original accused who was the Government servant, the Government is not releasing his Provident Fund, Gratuity and other benefits. The appellants - heirs of original deceased have no source of income and they were deprived of those benefits because of this conviction.2. I heard Mr. Nitin Jamdar advocate for the appellants and APP for the State. It was submitted by Mr. Jamdar that Civil Service Rules are harsh i...

In Re: Sarabhai Piramal Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]54SCL72(Bom)

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner-company namely Sarabhai Piramal Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (for short' Petitioner Company' or 'SPPL' or 'Transferor-company'), has invoked the provisions of Companies Act under Sections 391 to 394, to obtain sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation with Nicholas Piramal India Limited (for short 'NPIL' or 'Transferee-company').2. SPPL is a Private Limited Company having its office at Administrative Building, Morarjee Mills Compound, Parel, Mumbai. The authorised, issued and subscribed and paid up share capital of the petitioner-company, based on last Audited balance sheet for the year ended 31st March, 2003, read with the authorised, issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the transferee company, as per the balance sheet for the year ended 31st March, 2003 and transferee-company's Audited financial results quarter ending 31st December, 2003 are part of record. The Petitioner-Company is wholly owned subsidiary of Transferee-company.3. As per the o...

Garlick Engineering Vs. Kumar Khanolkar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(104)FLR1082]; 2005(1)MhLj527

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition impugns the order of the Labour Court passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 17 of 1984 directing the petitioner to pay backwages from the date of termination of the services of the respondent- workman i.e., from 29-10-1983 to 31-12-1988 with increments and other benefits. The petition also challenges the order dated 23-2-1993 issuing show-cause notice to one Vijay G. Sawant, Personnel Officer of the petitioner for producing and using forged and false documents in the matter while leading evidence.2. The short question which arises in this petition is whether the remuneration earned for a short while by an employee whose services have been terminated can be adjusted against the entire period of non-employment with the employer.3. The petitioner employed respondent No. 1 in its service as a Senior Engineer. His services came to be terminated in 1983. Aggrieved by this order of termination of his services, the respondent-workman challenged the order by filing co...

Prakash S/O Harising Bhadoriya and anr. Vs. Dada S/O Jago Chahande

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR494; 2004(4)MhLj558

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the unsuccessful original plaintiffs have filed this second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 5-9-1989 passed by the Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 393 of 1994, whereby the appeal came to be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 19-12-1983 passed by the trial Court granting decree for possession of the portion of the land marked by letters A B C D and Y R L V in the map annexed with the plaint and directing the defendants to remove their huts from the land, has been set aside and the suit is dismissed.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under:The appellants/plaintiffs filed suit for possession of the land on the contentions that the father of plaintiff No. 1 and the husband of plaintiff No. 2 owned ancestral house and open land shown in the map at village Daini. Harising, the father of plaintiff No. 1, died in the year 1977 and af...