Mumbai Court April 2005 Judgments

Charanjit Singh Nandrayog Vs. Commr. of Cus. (import)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009[16]STR394

ORDER1. Heard. Rule, Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. This petition is directed against the order dated January 19, 2005 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai directing the petitioner-appellant before the Tribunal to pre-deposit 50% of the penalty amount with direction that subject to such pre-deposit being made and compliance reported, the pre-deposit of the balance amount shall be waived during the pendency of the appeal.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while challenging the order contended that the order does not contain any reason in support of the conclusion recorded in the impugned order.4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue does not dispute this position. However, the submits that since no reasons are to be found in the order, the impugned order be set aside by consent of the parties and the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh following ...

Eldee Velvets and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A short point is involved, as the appellants refund claim was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appellant were contesting on the price reflected in their invoices, during the relevant period, was in existence before as well as during the subsequent period. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that during the relevant period various decisions of the Tribunal supported the view that if the price remained constant through out the period, the same will lead to the conclusion that the duty element has not been passed on to the customers. However, the said view was reversed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of CCEx. v. Allied Products Ltd. 2004 166 ELT 3 (SC) laying down that the fact of constant price factor by itself will not lead to inevitable conclusion that the duty element has not been recovered from the customers. Ld. Advocate submits that in as much as the appellants contested on the legal issue, they did not produce any other evidence to sho...

Commissioner of Customs (P) Vs. Shri M.M. Raikhanna

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT322Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai setting aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the Respondent herein by the Additional Collector of Customs on the ground that he along with others collided with M/s Ritu Fashions in diverting polyester textiles imported duty free under Advance Licence instead of utilizing the fabrics for manufacture of ladies polyester dresses and ladies polyester jump suits for export, contrary to condition of Notification No. 117/78-CUS dated 09/06/78. The case of the Department is that the respondent herein assisted Shri R.C Sharma of M/s Ritu Exports to obtain advance licence in return for getting 50% of the profit and thus collided with Shri R.C. Sharma and others to defraud the revenue.2. We have heard both sides. Shri R.C. Sharma of M/s Ritu Exports has stated that one Shri K L Sud introduced him to the respondent The respondent stated that he can obtain licence in the name of M/s Ritu Exports and that...

Madhu Kacharam Achra Vs. Gul Kachharam Achra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR419; 2005(3)MhLj713

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the petitioner challenges the award dated 21st July, 2003 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal by that award has rejected the claim made by the petitioner.2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are :The disputes between the parties arose out of a contract dated 16th June, 1995 for charter hire of a jack up rig by the respondent from the petitioner, who was owner of the rig. The contract between the parties was to commence from 10th April, 1995. The primary term of the contract was for one year i.e. 10th April, 1995 to 9th April, 1996. Admittedly by the second addendum, as permissible under Clause 1.3(a) of the contract, the period was further extended for one year from the date and time of the completion of the well in progress. As a result the extended term of contract was to expire on 22-4-1997. However, the respondent under their lett...

Sicom Ltd. Vs. Prabhudayal B. Chamaria

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005]127CompCas472(Bom); 2005(3)MhLj1026

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present group of petitions is filed under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act. Since both the parties to the petition agree that the facts in each of the present petition is almost identical and issues raised are also similar, the said group of petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts in Miscellaneous petition No. 56 of 2002 are taken for the purpose of the present judgment.3. The petitioner is the deemed State Financial Corporation within the meaning of Section 46 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The Company known as Shree Shyam Fabrics Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the said Company) approached the petitioner for sanction and grant of term loan. In May, 1989 a request was made to disburse term loan of Rs. 83 lacs for the purpose of establishing the unit of process house for processing of fabrics at Tarapur MIDC Industrial Area, Taluka Palghar, Dist. Thane. In 1993, a further request was made for grant of...

Wasanti Amol @ Avikumar Dhule Vs. Janakalyan Co-operative Path Sanstha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj1052

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. This application is filed for transfer of case pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahad, District Raigad being Summons Case No. 240 of 2004, to any other Judicial Magistrate, First Class in the region for further trial and disposal as per law.3. This application has been moved on the allegation that the applicant entertains reasonable apprehension that she will not get justice at the hands of concerned Trial Judge before whom aforesaid criminal case is pending for trial against the applicant. The basis on which such apprehension is entertained, is essentially that although, the applicant had intention to compromise the matter and had filed formal application in that behalf, and the respondent, in turn, had also agreed for compromise, the Trial Judge rejected the said application and proceeded with trial.4. It is then asserted that the applicant was throughout present on all dates, except on 8th October, 2...

Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Lt ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR437; 2006(2)BomCR364; 2005(3)MhLj824; [2006]66SCL402(Bom)

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The disputes in these suits and notices of motion relate to sell of shares of a company Odeon Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd. by Gul Kachharam Achra to the members of Runwal family and therefore these notices of motion can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. Admittedly, Odeon Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'Odeon') was controlled by members of Achra family. 990 shares of Odeon were held by Mr. Madhu Achra, who is plaintiff in Suit No. 3166 of 2004, 225 shares of Odeon were held by Mr. Suresh Achra, 315 shares of Odeon were held by Ms. Pramila Chhuttani, who are plaintiffs in Suit No. 3531 of 2004, 990 shares of Odeon were held by M/s Khushalani Investments Pvt. Ltd., which is plaintiff in Suit No. 3530 of 2004. It is an admitted position that M/s Khushalani Investment Pvt. Ltd. is a company controlled by Mr. Ashok Khushalani. It is also an admitted position that Mr. Gul Achra and his wife Mrs. Kanta Gul Achra together held 990 shares of Odeon. M...

BenjamIn Pereira Vs. Communidade of Colvale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR271

Britto N.A., J.1. Heard Shri Satardekar on behalf of the appellant and Shri Kantak on behalf of the respondent.2. By Notification dated 16-8-1994, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, published on Gazette dated 16-8-1994, land was acquired for the purpose of setting up of an Industrial Estate at Colvale and, in the said acquisition, an area of 1,09,090 square metres and 525 square metres were acquired from Survey Nos. 220/1 and 218/3 respectively. There was a dispute as regards payment of the said compensation between the appellant and the respondent which was referred to the learned District Judge, Panaji. The said dispute arose on account of the claim of tenancy put forward by the appellant. By Award dated 30-4-2001, in LAC No. 111/95, the learned Additional District Judge has ordered the entire compensation in respect of Survey No. 218/3 to be paid to the communidade while the entire compensation in respect of Survey No. 220/1 to be paid to the appellant. Thi...

Padmashri Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil, Foundation's Medical College Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)MhLj34

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule in both petitions. By consent heard forthwith.2. Writ Petition No. 3212 of 2004 has been filed by the management of Padmashri Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil Foundation's Medical College to challenge the order dated 11th October, 2004 passed by the respondent No. 1 of which the respondent No. 2 is the Chairman. By that order the respondent No. 1 directed that the admission of (1) Demde Rakesh Bhagwan, (2) Bahekar Pratik Pramod, (3) Sharma Gaurav Mahesh, (4) Shaikh Shifa Akif, (5) Sahir Jangam and (6) Bhole Parag Chandrakant are not approved and further directed the management to admit students who have secured more marks and whose names are given in the earlier part of the order and who are respondent Nos. 3 to 8. It is this order which is the subject-matter of the present petition.3. Writ Petition No. 9252 of 2004 has been filed by students to implement the order passed by the Pravesh Niyantran Samiti. The main relief sought is to direct the management to forthwith i...

Dilip Bidesh and ors. Vs. Shivgopal Madangopal Chaurasia and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR463; 2005(6)BomCR207; 2005(4)MhLj967

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. In this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, challenge is to the judgment dated 20-3-2003 delivered by Second Additional District Judge, Nagpur in R.C.A. 574/2001 in an appeal under Section 26-A of Provincial Small Causes Court Act (referred to as Provincial Act hereafter) whereby said Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30-10-2001 delivered by Additional Judge, Small Causes Court Nagpur in Civil Suit No. 1435/1986. The revision applicant is the original tenant and defendant in Civil Suit and appellant in appeal. The present respondent obtained permission from Rent Controller under provisions of C.P. and Berar House Rent Control Order, 1949 and also from Competent Authority under the provisions of Slum Act and, then terminated tenancy of present revision applicant by issuing notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. When the revision applicant failed to comply with that notice, he filed above referred C...