Mumbai Court November 2006 Judgments

Official Liquidator Vs. Sumedh S. Zantye and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007]138CompCas877(Bom)

N.A. Britto, J.1. Heard Ms. Razaq, learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant and Shri V.P. Thali, the learned advocate on behalf of respondent No. 2.2. This claim application is filed by the official liquidator for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,876 with interest at the rate of 21.5 per cent, from January 1, 1999, to February 28, 2001, and future interest, also at the rate of 21.5 per cent, per annum.3. The claim arises out of a loan given by the company in liquidation, namely, Bharatiya Development Finance Ltd., to respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2 standing as surety for him. The said loan was given on April 19, 1997.4. Respondent No. 1 was duly served but has chosen not to contest the claim. Respondent No. 2 was duly served and has contested the claim of the applicant stating that he did not sign at all any of the documents purported to have been signed by him. Respondent No. 2 also stated that the residential address of respondent No. 2 was shown as Shiroda, Taluka Vengurla, b...

Meena Rajendra Deore Vs. Narendra Gajanan Banait and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)BC428; 2007(2)BomCR417

A.S. Oka, J.1. Heard Mr. Karnik, appearing for the applicant in support of prayer for grant of leave to prefer an appeal. The applicant is the complainant in two separate complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Both the complaints have resulted in acquittal.2. Since facts of both the cases are more or less similar, I am referring to the facts of the case in Criminal Application No. 6256 of 2005. The case of the applicant is that a hand-loan of Rs. 50,000/- was advanced by her to the first respondent. The first respondent was to repay the amount on or before 1st March, 1999. A cheque was issued for discharge of the said liability by the first respondent which was dishonoured on the basis of which the complaint has been filed.3. Mr. Karnik, appearing for the applicant submitted that the learned trial Judge has completely ignored the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and has put entire burden on the applican...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shree Siddheshwar Ssk Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal No. E/3031/2005 is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. P-III/200/2005, dated 27-6-2005. By this order Commissioner has partly set aside the order of the original authority No. 69/CEX/2004, dated 17-12-2004. The appeal No. E/4079/2005 is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. P-III/293/2005, dated 8-9-2005. By this order the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand of duty and penalty imposed by the original authority vide his order No. 2/CEX/2005, dated 22-2-2005. In both appeals the respondents is the same and the issue involved is also the same.2. Heard the learned DR for the appellant department. None appeared for the respondents and considered the submissions in the appeal petition. (a) The respondent company are manufacturers of sugar, molasses, ethyl alcohol and paper; (b) The respondent is availing Cenvat credit facility in respect of inputs, namely, molasses used in the manufacture of the said goods ethyl alcohol; (c) The respo...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sagar Industries and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue has preferred the present appeal.2. 1 have heard Shri P.K. Katiyar, ld. SDR appearing for the revenue and Shri T.C. Nair, ld. Consultant, appearing for the respondents.3. The respondents has procured molasses from Sarangdhar Sugar Mills Ltd., on payment of duty and have availed the benefit of Modvat credit of said duty paid by the Khandsari Sugar Factory, where the molasses has been manufactured and cleared on payment of duty.4. The revenue's objection is that in terms of provisions of Rule 4(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, duty in respect of the molasses is required to be paid by the person, who procures such molasses. As such, they had contended that it is the appellants, who was under legal obligation to pay duty on the molasses. Accordingly, the original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 2,49,876/- against the appellants and also imposed personal penalty of identical amou...

i.G. Petrochemicals Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC1

1. All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise vide which: (i) He has confirmed demand of Rs. 1,93,15,875/- in respect of Steam Turbine Driver for generator imported by M/s. I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd. (appellant No. 1), by denying them the benefit of Notification No. 13/81-Cus. dt. 9.2.1981 and Notification No. 53/97-Cus. dt. 1.3.1997. (ii) Interest on the above demand stands confirmed by him in terms of Section 28AB of Customs Act, 1962. (iii) Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,82,924/- stands confirmed against the said appellant in respect of the indigenous capital goods accessories procured by them in terms of exemption Notification No. 1/95 along with confirmation of interest. (iv) Penalty of Rs. 1,93,15,875/- and Rs. 2,82,924/- stands imposed upon the said appellant in terms of provisions of Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, respectively. (v)...

Prakash Harishchandra Muranjan Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Developm ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR639; 2007(3)BomCR192

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This Appeal from order under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenges the order dated 23.8.2006, rendered by the City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, in Notice of Motion No. 1990 of 2006 in L.C.Suit No. 2238 of 2006, by which the notice of motion has been rejected.2. In the notice of motion, the appellant had made the following prayers: (a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant order and temporary injunctions restraining the defendants and their agents and servants or any other persons claiming by under or through them from executing the orders communicated by Exhibit 'J1 to J27' and demolish the structures mention therein in Execution of the said orders being Exhibit. (b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased by granting order and temporary injunctions restraining the defendants and their agents and servants or any other persons for entering into the property bearing Survey No. 35, Hissa No. 1 (Part), C.T.S. No. 688 situate at Marol Sak...

Chandrashekhar Shankarrao Kulkarni Vs. the Rahul Shikshan Prasarak Man ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR181

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Second Appeal No. 166 of 1986 is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned III Additional District Judge, Aurangabad in Regular Civil Appeal (RCA) No. 49 of 1984. The appellant was the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit (RCS) No. 539 of 1979 filed against the respondent/ defendant, which was decreed with costs by the learned Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Aurangabad, by his judgment and decree dated 31.1.1987. Plaintiff in RCS No. 539 of 1979 is being referred to, hereinafter, as plaintiff Chandrashekhar and defendant in the suit is hereinafter, referred to as the defendant-trust, for the sake of convenience. Thus, the second appeal No. 166 of 1986 is by the original plaintiff-Chandrashekhar. 2. Challenge in Second Appeal No. 369 of 1998 is to the judgment and decree passed in RCA No. 156 of 1996 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Aurangabad. RCS No. 174 of 1985 was filed by Rahul Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (plaintiff-trust) against the defendants i...

Prakash B. Borkar Vs. Sukhalal Kumar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ9

ORDERN.A. Britto, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant and respondent No. 1.2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973), for the following reliefs:(a) That matter be treated as compounded between the parties as already done and applicant may kindly be absolved from criminal liability as per the Judgment and Order passed on 23-8-2006 by the Court by reviewing the same in view of subsequent events taken place and in view of the Order dated 11-10-2006 passed by this Court.(b) The Court may further be pleased to issue directions to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao (1st Additional) not to proceed further in the Criminal Case No. 905/OA/NI/2002/1 in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties No. 10-10-2006.3. To understand the controversy, a few facts are required to be stated.4. The applicant herein is the accused against whom the complainant had filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrum...

Mtv Network India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC349

1. After hearing both the sides, we find that vide the impugned orders authorities below have confirmed service tax against the appellants and imposed penalties on the ground that activities undertaken by them in India for and on behalf of their principal M/s MTV Network Asia situated in Hong Kong, with whom they have entered into an agreement amount to services provided by an advertising agency.2. For better appreciation, we are reproducing the services undertaken by the appellants, as recorded in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals): Thus: it is clear and it is an admitted fact by the appellants that they were providing information to the foreign companies regarding displays; arranging sale of advertising and sponsorship on the channels, collecting information relating to advertising client who wants to advertise their product on any of the channels, collecting information relating to advertising client who wants to advertise their product on any of the channels, collect...

Krishnaram Dyeing and Finishing Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC194

1. These appeals arise out of the order-in-original number 1/MP/98 dated 27/02/1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat I.2. Heard the learned advocate Shri Mayur Shroff for the appellants and the learned SDR, Shri Ajay Saxena for the department. On behalf of the appellants several case laws, each of them covering certain aspects of the case were quoted and with the prayer to set aside the impugned order-in -original.3. It would be appropriate to first narrate the case, then the law applicable to the facts of the case and thereafter consider the case laws relied by them.4. Brief facts of the case as set out in the Commissioner's order, are as follows: a. The appellant is a processor of fabrics and they have done processing on behalf of several persons referred to as merchant manufacturers. b. When the officers visited by surprise on 17/03/1997, they found stock of processed fabrics, in excess of what was accounted and seized 308 pieces of manmade fabrics me...