Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Tony Francis Guiness Vs. Indekka Software Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR295; III(2005)BC229; 2005(2)BomCR514; [2006]131CompCas846(Bom); [2005]61SCL217(Bom)

Karnik D.G., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who appears on private notice.2. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in CDT Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd. v. BPL Communications Ltd., reported in 2004(56) SEBI 665, the learned Counsel for the defendant does not object to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and try this suit.3. After entering into the shareholders agreement, the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 formed the defendant No. 1 company. Article 50 of the Articles of Association prescribes that the Board would take decisions by simple majority laid a proviso that certain decisions could be taken only if both the plaintiff and the defendant or their nominees had voted in favour of that resolution. The said article also provides that increase of the share capital of the company including the issuance of further shares would require consent both of the plaintiff as well as of the defendant expressed in th...

Special Land Acquisition Officer (N) and anr. Vs. Ramesh Mahadev Sinai ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR234

Lavande A.P., J.1. By this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 13-5-2003, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Mapusa in Land Acquisition Case No. 138/98 partly allowing the reference.2. An area admeasuring 14,200 sq. metres bearing Survey No. 97/2 situated on the boarder of Tivim Village of Bardez Taluka was acquired by the Government for construction of Left Bank Main Canal of Tillari Irrigation Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') was published on 13-10-1995. The Land Acquisition Officer made the Award on 30-9-1997, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. metre in respect of the land. The respondents herein sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. metre. The Reference Court decided the reference partly allowing it and enhancing the market rate in respect of the acquired land from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 110/- pe...

Vishram S/O Shripat Wankhede (Wrongly Mentioned in Complaint as Vishra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1471

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this petition is filed challenging the order dated 30/11/2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class in private Complaint Case No. 462/2000 whereby the learned Magistrate reconsidered the matter for issuing of process against the petitioner-original accused No. 2 and co-accused Nos. 3 and 8 and directed that process be issued against them for the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Mrs. Maldhure, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused contended that a private criminal complaint has been filed by respondent No. 2 Ujjawala in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class wherein it was alleged that Ujjawala is legally wedded wife of Jaideo Wankhede and that her husband had performed the second marriage with one Baby, original accused No. 7, on 30/4/2000, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the paren...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Marigold Paints

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals, filed by the Revenue assessee-appellants and others, against the very same order, are taken up for decision, by this common order.2. From the reply dated 7.7.1998 of the assessee placed on record, it is observed: i) the goods are claimed to be not fully finished and the findings in para 21 of the Order-in-Original based on the Panchanama is not found to be factually correct and/or considering the submissions as regards the fully manufactured status of the goods in this case. ii) In the very same reply in para (c), a reference has been made to the nature of packing and no material has been arrived at as to what was the nature of the packing of the goods under seizure. Since packing is an essential requisite for rendering goods marketable and thus excisable, this factual aspect was required to be determined. Non determination of the same and the reliance on the Panchanama which does not bring out this aspect would render the present order to be set aside and fit for de...

Beta Cosmetics, Alfa Packaging Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals are arising out of two separate orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vapi involving common issue and are hence heard together and disposed off by this common order. The demand of Rs.65,47,330/- has been confirmed by disallowing Modvat/Cenvat Credit against M/s Beta Cosmetics during the period April 1999 to September 2003 and penalty of Rs.40,24,404 under Rule 173Q and Rs.25,22,926/- under rule 13(2) has been imposed. The demand of duty of Rs.71,08,353/- has been confirmed against M/s. Alfa Packaging by disallowing Modvat/Cenvat credit availed during the period April 1999 to September 2003 and penalty of Rs.41,42,059/- under Rule 173Q and Rs.29,66,294/- under Rule 13(2) has been imposed. Penalty of Rs.35,50,000/- has been imposed on Shri C. Jayseela Raj, Authorised Signatory of Alfa Packaging.2. The credit has been denied on the ground that manufacturers of inputs used by the appellants units in the manufacture of Clinic Plus Coconut Hair Oil, ...

Kappac Pharma Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals involved common issue for determination and hence heard together and disposed off by this common order.2. Appeal No. E/41/99 arises out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding modvat credit denial of Rs. 7,42,500/- availed by the appellants during the period September 1994 to June 1995; Appeal No. E/42/99 arises out of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the denial of modvat credit of Rs. 3,37,351/- availed during the period 17/12/94 to 22/07/1995; Appeal No. E/64/99 arises out of the said order upholding the denial of Rs. 3 0,030.90 availed during the period 17/12/1994 to 28/06/1995.3. The credit has been denied on the ground that the products in dispute, Generic Medicaments were classifiable under CETA chapter sub-heading 3003.20 attracting Nil rate of duty and not under CETA chapter sub-heading 3003.10 as claimed by the assessees.4. The appellants did not challenge the classification arrived at by the lower authorities and the only a...

Ksl and Industries Ltd., (Formerly Known as Krishna Texport Industries ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)45; 2005(2)ALLMR581; III(2005)BC500; 2005CriLJ1201

Dalveer Bhandari, C.J.1. All these petitions emanate from the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'). Therefore, we propose to decide these petitions by a common judgment.2. These petitions raise following two issues, which are required to be determined:(i) Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, according to the legislative mandate, requires to be adjudicated expeditiously and in any event, within six months from the date of the service of summons or warrants on the accused?(ii) Whether, in spite of mandate of Section 145(1) of the Act, the Court is obliged to examine the complainant even in respect of matters which have been stated on affidavit?3. Now, we would deal with basic facts and issues involved in individual petitions.Criminal Writ Petition No. 1228 of 2004:4. The petitioner Company approached this Court against the order of the learned Sessions Judge delivered in Criminal Revision Application No. 713 of 2003 o...

Shri Hemant Chandrakant Kulkarni Vs. Sou. Shubhangi Mohiniraj Sulavani ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR758; 2005(2)MhLj568

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Petitioner's challenge in this Petition is that without affording him a hearing the Deputy Director of Education, Nasik Region by an order dated 16th March 2002 reduced the Petitioner's pay scale and further directed recovery from the salary of the Petitioner for the period from 1st July 1997 to 1st June 2000. The question involved in the Writ Petition is whether the Petitioner is entitled to the scale payable to Trained Graduate Teachers or whether he should be granted a lower scale.2. The Petitioner has acquired the B.Sc. and the B.Ed. degrees in 1992 and 1992 respectively. He as appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the school run by Respondent No. 7 Society. He was paid the pay scale prescribed for B.Ed. teachers which was approved by the Education Officer. The Petitioner was then required to undergo a written and oral examination and was directed to demonstrate his teaching skills. The Institution found that there was sufficient workload and since the Petit...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. C.M. Amrute and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR128; 2005(4)MhLj960

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. All these petitions challenge the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 3rd April 2003 allowing the original applications made by the respondent in the present petition before the Tribunal and the original applicants before the Tribunal are employees of Government of India in the department of Central Excise and at the relevant time were working in the commission rate of Excise at Pune. Departmental proceedings were started against each of them for misconducts mentioned in the charge sheets duly served and after the charges were held proved, various punishments were awarded. Correctness of those punishments were the subject matter of all the applications before the Tribunal. Since the incident out of which the entire proceedings of each applicant arose were the same and the arguments advanced before the Tribunal were the same, the Tribunal by the order dated 3rd April 2003 proceeded to allow the original applications, observing that the Union of In...

Villa Moda General Trading Co. W.L.L. and anr. Vs. Chordia Fashions Pv ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR41

D.G. Karnik, J.1. This motion is taken out by the plaintiffs for reliefs of several injunctions mentioned below: i) Regarding confidentiality - restraining the defendant from committing a breach of clause No. 12.1 of the Franchisee Agreement and disclosing to anyone the confidential information mentioned therein. ii) Regarding injurious falsehood -restraining the defendant from committing a tort of injurious falsehood by alleging in any correspondence, e-mail or otherwise that it is not the defendant but it is the plaintiffs who have committed breach of the franchisee agreement dated 4th November 2003 (Exhibit-C to the plaint) iii) Regarding copy right -restraining the defendant from infringing its copy right in the drawings and designs mentioned in prayer clause a(ii) of the motion. 2. The plaintiffs moved the application for ad-interim relief after serving a private notice to the defendant. The defendant appeared and opposed grant of an ad-interim relief. Mr. Chhagla, learned counsel...