Mumbai Court September 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Vardhaman Metals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents herein imported a consignment of Tungsten Carbide Scrap Tool Form serviceable/defective and claimed clearance under OGL under Bills of Entry filed by them, which was objected to on the ground that the goods were subject to 1st check examination and found to be "old and used serviceable carbide tips". The Department denied the claim since the goods were old and used serviceable carbide tips and the same were classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 8207.90, and also requires an import licence, as they were second-hand goods and import without licence was not allowed in terms of Import Policy 1997-2002. The value of the goods declared has also been found not to be acceptable. The adjudicating authority, for the above reason ordered confiscation of the goods under Provision of Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to the importers to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- respectively. He has also i...

Essar Oil Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102TTJ(Mum.)614

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The appeal relates to the asst. yr. 2000-01. The assessee had chartered a foreign oil tanker in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal for transporting petroleum products from port of Chennai in the east coast of India to port Hazira in the west coast of India. The assessee-company had remitted freight to the foreign oil tanker without withholding tax under Section 195 of the IT Act, 1961. The AO treated the assessee-company as an assessee-in-default and demanded a tax amount of Rs. 4,54,850 to cover the non-deduction. He also levied interest of Rs. 27,290 towards the delay period. The demand for tax deductible at source and interest due thereon has been made through the order passed under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961. The order has been passed on 31st May, 2000, which has been upheld by the CIT(A)-XXXI at Mumbai through his order passed on 3rd April, 2002. The assessee is aggrieved and, therefore, ...

The Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate, a Company Incorporated Under t ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR739; 2006(2)BomCR103; 2006(1)MhLj344; 2006(33)PTC188(Bom)

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Counsel for the Appellants and the Respondents. 2. This Appeal was admitted on 27.4.2004 and hearing was expedited looking to the issue involved. Appellants are the original Defendants and Respondents are original Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a suit before the Additional District Judge, Palghar, complaining of infringement of the Copy Right or infringement of rights conferred under The Copy Right Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). With reference to Section 62 of the said Act, dispute is about the labels on the liquor bottles. Colour copies of the said liquor bottles, infringement of which was complained, were tendered by the Counsel for the Appellants. It is at Exhibit 12A. The label of the plaintiffs as well as the label of the defendants - appellants is shown there. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of copyright in artistic work in label 'Prince Santra' which is shown in Exhibit 12A and I have marked it as L-1 f...

Jetu Jacques Taru Lalvani and Indu Jagdish Parekh Vs. Shreeji Mineral ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR731

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings. 2. This chamber summons is taken out by Indu Jagdish Parekh for raising of attachment in respect of flat No. 24, New Ideal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Milan 87, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034. According to the applicant, she is the sole owner of the said flat. The applicant however, accepts the position that Judgment debtor No. 3 Smt. Rita Jayant Parekh was one of the co-owner alongwith applicant and one Smt.Mala Bipin Parekh, as is reflected from the share certificate issued by the New Ideal Cooperative Housing Society, under which interest in the premises is obtained. It is only in December, 1999, applicant's name has been shown as sole owner of the shares and consequently having proprietary interest in the subject flat. It is on this basis, it is contended that the award which is put in execution by way of Execution Application No. 453 of 2003 against the Judgment debtor No. 3, cannot be the basis to proceed ...

Kirti Trambaklal Shah Vs. Collector of Mumbai District and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR894

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.Pursuant to the order of this Court, which is dated 8th August, 2005, an officer from the Registrar of Companies, Mrs. V.S. Hajare, Senior Technical Assistant, has remained present in the Court with the record. From the original record, we find that Form No. 32 had been filed in the office of the Registrar on 20th August, 1999. A change was recorded on 15th November, 1999. With the above, the petition may now be considered as disposed of.2. The petitioner approached this Court pursuant to a demand dated 4th March, 2005 made on the petitioner by respondent No. 1 under Section 267 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 90,00,002/- in satisfaction of the penalty of Rs. 90,00,000/-. Subsequent to the demand, on behalf of the petitioner, correspondence was exchanged with respondent No. 1. On 13th June, 2005, the petitioner received a copy of a letter dated 13th June, 2005 addressed by the Joint Direc...

indraprastha Holdings Ltd. Vs. Vijay J. Shah and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ574; 2006(1)MhLj101

A.S. Oka, J. 1. On the 25th July, 2005 this Revision Application was taken up for final hearing and after conclusion of hearing, today it is kept for dictation of judgment.2. The question which arises for consideration in this Revision Application is whether the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1881) as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment And Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) are applicable to the complaints under Section 138 of the said Act of 1881 which were pending on the date on which the Amending Act came into force.3. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the Counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to facts of the case. The applicant is the complainant in a complaint under Section 138 of the said Act of 1881. The respondent No. 1 is the accused in the complaint. The complaint was filed in October, 2001 in the Court of the...

Devram Govind Gadge Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR485; 2006(1)BomCR259; 2006(1)MhLj589

Kanade V.M., J.1. The petitioners by this Petition are challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of land admeasuring 1 hectare and 62 Ares from Gat No. 1344 in partition from village Nimgaon Sava, Taluka-Junnar, District-Pune.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of this Petition are as under;The petitioner's case is that their land admeasuring 1 hectare 75 Ares was acquired in the year 1982 from Gat No. 710 and at the relevant time this land stood in the name of the joint family of the petitioners and that there was partition between the petitioners on 16.8.1986 and pursuant to the said partition , application was made to the revenue authority namely the Tahsildar, Junnar for giving permission for partition of the land. It is the case of the petitioners that Tehsildar, Junnar passed an order dated 6.8.1986 and divided the land amongst the petitioners by metes and bounds and permission under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Land...

Anil Kushabrao Phutane Vs. Madhukar Kushabrao Phutane and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom1; 2006(1)ALLMR555; 2006(1)BomCR786; 2006(1)MhLj369

P.S. Brahme, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.R. Lambat, Adv. for the appellant.2. Admit.3. Mrs. B. H. Dangre, Adv. waives notice on behalf of the respondents.4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties by consent for final disposal.5. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4597 of 2004, dated 9-12-2004 is subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant, thereby confirming the order passed by the trial Court, dt. 20-7-2004 on the application (Exh.31) in Special Civil Suit No. 78 of 2003 rejecting the application seeking permission to file written statement.6. The learned trial Court and the learned Single Judge found that the mandate in the time schedule prescribed in Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (in short, 'the Amendment Act, 2002') does not permit to accept the written statement filed be...

Milind Dattatreya Sugavkar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR488; 2006(2)BomCR617; 2006(1)MhLj385

Ranjana Desai, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. He is a practicing advocate. He is appearing in person. Respondent 1 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short 'the Corporation'). Respondent 2 is one Mangesh Shripad Sanzagiri, who is the Secretary of Shri Sai Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short, 'the said society') situated in CTS No. 236, Plot No. 9, S.V.P. Road, Ground floor, Survey No. 22, Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400103.3. The facts which are necessary to understand the controversy may be shortly stated as under :The petitioner's brother is the member of the said society. Flat No. 1 on the ground floor of the said society stands in his name. The Corporation issued a notice under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (for short, 'the said Act') calling upon the petitioner to demolish the alleged unauthorised structure being front portion of hall, admeasu...

National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Regional ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR329; [2006(109)FLR98]; (2006)ILLJ1011Bom; 2006(1)MhLj669

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Ghate, learned counsel for the petitioners.2. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 14-10-1993 passed by the respondent, by which the respondent has directed petitioners to pay amount of Rs. 65,700/- as compensation under Section 20(3) of Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said amount of compensation was to be paid within a period of 30 days. This Court has permitted the petitioners to deposit said amount in the office of this Court and accordingly the learned counsel for the petitioners states that in compliance of order dated 19-7-1994 passed by this Court, the amount of Rs. 65,000/- is deposited by the petitioners in the office of this Court.3. The petitioners are reported to be an establishment of Government of India and it appears that the establishment of petitioners was visited by Inspector on 5-9-1991 and he found that employees worki...