Mumbai Court November 2005 Judgments

Kesha Appliances P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Royal Holdings Services Ltd. and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR545; [2006]130CompCas227(Bom); [2005]65SCL293(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. These two Notices of Motion are taken out for various interim reliefs in a suit which has been preferred by the shareholders of a company known as Spice Jet Ltd The defendant No. 7 company carries on the business of running a domestic airlines. The 7th defendant company originally commenced the commercial operations on 2.5.1993. The said company was formally known as Modi Luft Ltd. Sometime in or about 20.6.94 a collaboration agreement was executed between erstwhile company known as Modi Luft with Lufthansa under which it was agreed that the operation and management of the airlines will be taken over by Lufthansa. However it seems that in 1996 the said arrangement between Modi Luft and Lufthansa came to an end and there were litigations filed between the defendant No. 7 company which was then known as Modi Luft and Lufthansa. Ultimately an out of court settlement was arrived at between the defendant No. 7 and Lufthansa on 13.8.1997. On 26.12.1997 the promoters of the ...

Mahindra and Mahindra Limited Vs. Sunil Yeshwant Pandit and Shri P.S. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR261; 2006(1)BomCR38; [2006(109)FLR47]; (2006)IILLJ363Bom

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 10th/11th January 2002 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2448 of 1995 filed by the appellant herein. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition by her order and upheld the Award dated 11th May 1994 given by the Labour Court at Nashik in Reference (IDA) No. 5 of 1987, which had set aside the dismissal of respondent No. 1 from his service and granted him reinstatement with continuity in service and full back wages from the date of dismissal i.e. 31.1.1986 till reinstatement. 2. The relevant facts leading to this Letters Patent Appeal are as follows:-The appellant is a Company engaged in the business of manufacturing jeep-type vehicles and tractors amongst other products. The appellant has one of its factories situated in the Industrial Estate at Satpur, Nashik. As per para-3 of the Writ Petition, the appellant employs about 1000 employees at the...

Kishorekumar Mohanlal Kothari Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR675; 2006(3)BomCR842; 2006(2)MhLj591

P.S. Brahme, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 19th September, 1991 passed by the learned District Judge, Akola in Land Acquisition Case No. 46 of 1987 rejecting the claim of the appellant for compensation in respect of his land acquired.2. The facts which are no more in dispute are as follows :The land of the appellant was acquired by the State Government in First Appeal No. 90 of 1992 decided on 30-11-2005, (Nagpur) Revenue Case No. 36/47/1980-81 of Malkapur. In that, by the Award passed on 19th September, 1986, the amount of compensation awarded for his land acquired was Rs. 4,62,642/-. As the compensation awarded was not adequate, the appellant filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Akola (who exercised powers of the Collector for enhancement of compensation). The said authority duly examined the application for reference and referred the same to Civil Court...

Joint Cit, Vs. Essar Oil Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]7SOT216(NULL)

ORDERG.E. Veerabhadrappa, V.P. This appeal by the revenue arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XIV, Mumbai, dated 29-11-1999 for assessment year 1996-97. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :'1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the services provided by the assessee do not fall within the category of fees for technical services and, therefore, are not assessable under section 44D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 115A of the Income Tax Act and further erred in directing assessing officer to compute the income of the assessee as business income as per provisions of Indo-UK DTAA.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing officer to consider the claim of the assessee for carry forward of the loss for set off against profits in subsequent years.'2. The facts in b...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Pradeep Kumar Shyam Sukha

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The relevant provision of Section 35E at the material time read as under: 35E(1) The Board may, of its own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which a Commissioner of Central Excise as an adjudicating authority has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct such Commissioner to apply to the Appellate Tribunal for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Board in its order. (2) The Commissioner of Central Excise may, of his own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an adjudicating authority sub-ordinate to him has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order any may, by order, direct such authority to apply to ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gujarat Reclaim and Rubber

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC398

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has held that "Crumb Rubber Powder" is not excisable inasmuch as no manufacture can be said to have taken place. For arriving at the above findings, he has relied upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case as and as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. For better appreciation we reproduced the relevant paragraph of the Commissioner (Appeal) orders: I observe that the appellants are manufacturers of reclaim rubber products falling under Chapter sub heading No. 4003.00 and the old tyres etc. are required for the process and are cut into pieces. Subsequently, cut pieces are sieved and small pieces are segregated. Such small pieces are crushed and the 'crumb rubber powder' is obtained and it is also known as tread rubber powder. The appellants have been following this process for quite sometime and paying nil rate of duty in view of the CEGAT judgment in their own case. However, they received a show cause n...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Godrej Soaps Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The present appeal filed by the revenue relates to the value of the assessee's product i.e. "Shikakai-3 in 1 Toilet Soap". The said products was cleared by the respondents under a scheme of Rs. 1.50 off and the maximum retail price to be on the said pack was at Rs. 11.50 per cake. The revenue's contention is that if the assessee would have sold the goods without offering any scheme, the maximum retail price would have been Rs. 13/- per cake. Accordingly, they were issued show cause notice for recovery of differential duty. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 4,43,898/- and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that only one MRP was mentioned i.e. Rs. 11.50 on the retail pack and, as such, the same MRP as declared has to be accepted as assessable value under Section 4A.2. The revenue in their grounds agitated that prior to the scheme, the appellants were selling the said toilet soap at Rs. 13/- per cake...

Mrs. Prema P. Shah and Sanjiv P. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100ITD60(Mum.)

2. I.T.A. No. 2707/Mumbai of 1997 : The interesting question before us is whether the exemption contemplated under Section 54(1) could be extended to a property purchased in a foreign country after selling the property situated in India. The assessee filed the return showing the taxable income of Rs. 33,570 on December 31, 1993. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1993-94, the assessee sold residential property for Rs. 60. lakhs. It was jointly owned by the assessee and Mrs. Prema P. Shah. It was purchased for Rs. 14.00 lakhs on March 29, 1983, and sold on April 4, 1992, for the aforementioned price. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54, showing long-term capital gains as nil. The assessee filed a xerox copy of the agreement made in London giving particulars such as date of lease, name of lessor and the lessee. On going through the agreement, the Assessing Officer noted that it was an agreement for leasing of the property by the lessor, viz., Higgs and ...

Shri Rohit Mull and Cadbury India Limited, a Company Incorporated Unde ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)108BOMLR350

N.A. Britto, J.1. The short point for consideration in these petitions, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is whether the prosecutions launched by the Food Inspectors against the petitioners should be allowed to continue on the face of the grievance of the petitioners that their right of having a second report from the Central Food Laboratory, in terms of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act, for short) and which overrides the report of public analyst, has been frustrated by the Food Inspectors. 2. These petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment since the point of law involved in both is common, though the facts are slightly different. 3. The petitioner no.2 is a registered company and the petitioner no.1 is a nominee of the said company nominated under Section 17(2) of the Act. Both the petitioners are accused nos. 2 & 1 in Criminal Case no. 726/2004/A before the Court of JMFC, Panaji and accused nos. 9 & 8 in ...

Municipal Council Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj129

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties. Respective learned Counsel waive notice for respective respondents.2. Petitioner - Municipal Council, Tuljapur acquired certain lands for the purpose of road widening in the year 1989. A notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act) was published on 22-1-1998. After following due procedure, an award was declared by the Collector under Section 11 of the said Act on 23-2-1989. Compensation was paid to the parties to the award. After payment of the compensation, the claimants prayed for Reference under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, Reference was made and was dealt with by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad as L.A.R. Nos. 288/1990, 64/1991, 359/1990, 75/1991 and 65/1991, Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, passed an Award in these References on 2-9-1993, 26-2-2002, 9-3-1994, 1-3-1995 and 8-1-2003 respectively. However, petitioner ...