Mumbai Court April 2005 Judgments

Sicom Ltd. Vs. Zenith Steel Tubes and Industries Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2007)BC568

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition is filed under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act.2. The facts of the present case briefly enumerated are as under:The petitioner is the deemed State Financial Corporation within the meaning of Section 46 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The respondent company was carrying on business of manufacturing galvanised pipes. Some time in or about November, 1992, the 1st respondent company approached the petitioner for financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 142 lakh to meet the part finance of the cost of the project. It was proposed to set up a factory at Survey No. 66 /1B within village Madap, Taluka Kolhapur, District Raigad for manufacture of galvanised pipes. The said amount was sanctioned and vide their letter dated 20.11.1992 a sum of Rs. 142 lakh was advanced by the petitioner to the 1st respondent. An agreement was entered into for term loan and the respondent No. 1 also created a security for repayment of t...

Santosh Textile Mills and Sandeep Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC52

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of man made fabrics.Their factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 28.7.2001, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result of search, ten copies of Central Excise invoices, all dated 27.7.2001 were found in torn condition. Physical verification of finished goods was also undertaken and it was found that 67,860 L. Mtrs. of fabrics totally valued at Rs. 8,47,206 was in excess as recorded balance in RG-1 register, the same was seized.2. As a result of the above facts, statements of various person were recorded, wherein they admitted to have cleared the processed fabrics under the cover of invoices mentioned above without payment of duty.The officer also received thirteen more Central Excise invoices bearing the same numbers all dated 28.7.2001. The statements of the appellant's buyers more also recorded, who admitted having received the goods without payment of duty.3. On the basis of the above facts, proceeding...

S.A.S. International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. As per the facts on record, the appellant imported the consignment of 50 Air conditioners of 1.5 tons capacity at the declared value of US $ 250. As a result of investigation conducted by the revenue officers, statements of the proprietor of the said appellant was recorded on 17/7/97 where in he admitted having misdeclared the value of the Air conditioners to increase the margin of profit. He also disclosed the correct negotiated value with the foreign supplier was around US $ 450/-. In the said statements he also gave details of modes operandi of the differential payment to foreign supplier. He deposed that one person of the supplier named Shri. Abdulla came to his office and collected the differential amount in cash as agreed at the time of negotiation The said proprietor also accepted his liability to pay customs duty on the imported Air conditioner and during the course of investigation voluntarily deposited the amount of Rs. 2.30 lakhs.Another statement was subsequently record...

S.A.S International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT927Tri(Mum.)bai

1. As per the facts on record, the appellant imported the consignment of 50 Air conditioners of 1.5 tons capacity at the declared value of US $ 250. As a result of investigation conducted by the revenue officers, statements of the proprietor of the said appellant was recorded on 17.7.97 where in the admitted having misdeclared the value of the Air conditioners to increase the margin of profit. He also disclosed the correct negotiated value with the foreign supplier was around US $ 450/-. In the said statements he also gave details of modes operandi of the differential payment to foreign supplier. He deposed that one person of the supplier named Shri. Abdulla came to his office and collected the differential amount in cash as agreed at the time of negotiation. The said proprietor also accepted his liability to pay customs duty on the imported Air conditioner and during the course of investigation voluntarily deposited the amount of RS.2.30 Lakhs.Another statement was subsequently recor...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dheerajlal A. Kansara

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT240Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue has filed the above appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Rajkot, who has held that the goods manufactured by the respondents herein are falling under the Chapter sub-heading 7409.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and eligible to the benefit of exemption in terms of Sr. No. 175 of the table to the Notification No. 8/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98.2. We have heard the ld. SDR and perused the records. The Commissioner (Appeals) has squarely noticed the distinction between copper and brass and held that, even though brass is the alloy of copper, it is different from copper. He has also relied upon Chapter Note 1(b) of the Chapter 72 of the Tariff. The findings of the lower appellate authority that the respondents manufacture brass and not copper has not been dislodged by the Revenue in the appeal before us. Since the items manufactured by the respondents are brass sheets and circles and Sr.No. 175 of the table to Notifica...

Bank of India Vs. Soumitra A. Wardekar

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2005)BC128

1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant Bank of India being aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune on Exhibit No. 31 in Original Application No. 912/P/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the amendment application made by the Bank for carrying out certain amendments which according to the learned Presiding Officer changed the "battle front." 2. I have heard Mr. Satish Shetye for the appellant Bank and Mr.Dhananjay Patil for the respondents. I have gone through the proceedings including the original application, proposed amendment and the impugned order and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has correctly passed the order. Having gone through all the proceedings, I find myself in agreement with the finding given by the learned Presiding Officer that by seeking the proposed amendment in the plaint/original application, the applicant Bank was trying to...

J.R. Traders Vs. Union Bank of India

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: I(2007)BC189

1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 16th February, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T. - III, Mumbai on exhibit No. 81 in Original Application No. 2165 of 2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants/defendants praying that the Tribunal under the powers and provisions of Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, refer a complaint in writing to the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the branch office where the applicant Bank's branch is located and examine the said complaint and issue process to the accused namely, Madam P.M. Mistry, Kaushalya Sampat and Aadivaran of the applicant Bank for committing the offence of forgery, fabrication of false documents, using documents known to be false, creating and using false evidence. It is this application, which came to be rejected by the learned Presiding Offi...

In Re: Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]68SCL176(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for winding up of the respondent company on the ground of just and equitable under section 434(e) of the Companies Act-I of 1956. Some of the material facts of the present case are briefly enumerated as under: 2. A company known as Capital Controls (Delaware) Company, Inc a company incorporated and registered under the relevant law of USA and the respondent herein which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act decided to carry on business jointly in India. In pursuance thereof they executed what is known as shareholders agreement dated 16.11.1995. Under the terms of the said agreement both parties agreed that to float a company in India in the name and style of 'Capital Controls India P. Ltd.' In clause-4 of the shareholders agreement it was inter-alia provided that the company shall initially have a share capital constituted of 150,000 equity shares of Rs.10/-each and the said shares will be subscribed b...

Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs. Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2006)BC155; 2005(2)MhLj1003

A.H. Joshi, J.1. The facts in brief can be stated as follows :--According to the complainant, she had advanced a loan of Rs. 5 lacks to accused. The accused person failed to repay the loan and ultimately the accused delivered to the complainant a cheque of Rs. 2,50,000/- dated 24-10-2001 bearing No. 1979158 drawn on Khamgaon Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Khamgaon, Branch Paratwada, towards the repayment of the loan with an assurance that the cheque shall be honoured positively.The cheque was dishonoured when deposited with Banks remark 'fund insufficient in the account of the accused'. On 16-11-2001 complainant issued notice by Registered Post as well as by Under Certificate of Posting on 16-11-2001 on the original address of the accused. The notice served by the UCP was received by the accused, however, the Registered A.D. envelop was received with Post Office remark 'do not claimed'. According to the complainant, despite knowledge of liabilities, the accused did not make the payment....

Chandramohan S/O Chandranarayan Mahehshwari and anr. Vs. Sarojbai Subh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR186; 2005(3)MhLj627

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.2. The learned Single Judge of this Court, Justice S. K. Shah has made the following reference :--'Whether the Rent Controller exercising the powers under the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 has power to consider and decide the application for setting aside the ex parte order passed by him?'3. These writ petitions are placed before the Division Bench under the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, for deciding the reference. Before we proceed to deal with the question that falls for adjudication, it is relevant to note that neither the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) nor the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order) make any express provision in regard to the procedure to be followed ...