Mumbai Court February 2006 Judgments

In Re: Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]131CompCas747(Bom); (2006)5CompLJ282(Bom); [2006]70SCL93(Bom)

A.M. Khanwailkar, J.1. This common judgment disposes of both the abovementioned company petitions. By these petitions filed under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner-company prays that the arrangement embodied in the scheme of arrangement referred to in the respective petitions be sanctioned by this Court with or without modification and declare the same to be binding on the petitioner-company and the concerned secured and unsecured creditors named in the scheme. The former petition is in relation to the scheme of arrangement with regard to the secured creditors, whereas the later is with regard to the specified unsecured creditors.2. The petitioner-company was incorporated on May 15, 1986 in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner-company became a public limited company on July 14, 1986. The share capital of the petitioner-company as on March 31, 2005 is stated to be as under :AuthorisedFigures in Rs.3,00,00,000 equityshares of Rs. ...

State Bank of India Vs. Ramkrishna J. Sakharkar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom185

V.A. Naik, J.1. When this second appeal came up for admission before this Court on 8-8-1991, this Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law formulated as under:Whether a suit for recovery of loan which is secured by creation of registered charge on the property of debtor, is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if the recover is based on the charged properties?2. In order to deal with the controversy in this second appeal as well as the substantial question of law involved therein, it is necessary to narrate a few facts which give rise to the substantial question of law, in this second appeal.The appellant-State Bank of India is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 16,179.49 against the respondents-defendants. The plaintiff pleaded that defendant No. 1, namely Ramkrishna approached the plaintiff-Bank and requested for advancement of loan for agricultural development purposes with the limit of Rs. 8,000/-, The advance w...

Tanajirao Rangrao Patil and anr. Vs. Kolhapur Agricultural Produce Mar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR509; 2006(4)MhLj97

V.G. Palshikar, Actg. C.J.1. By these two petitions the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Act XI of 2003 amending the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 in some aspects. Since the contentions raised are identical and submissions are also made together we will dispose of both these petitions by this common order.2. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3664 of 2003 were elected from certain specified categories mentioned in Section 13 of the Kolhapur Agricultural Market Committee and their elections were prior to the amendment to that section by the enactment which is impugned in this petition. Similar is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7629 of 2003. The petitioners have lost their right to vote as members of the Committee though they are duly elected and that according to them is violation of their statutory right, done arbitrarily and therefore liable to be set aside. The facts are...

Vijay Bhav and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC147

2. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. The case facts have been narrated in detail in the order passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial), therefore they need not be reiterated once again.The difference of opinion to resolve in the instant case as to whether the penalties as reduced by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) or the penalties confirmed by Hon'ble Member (Technical) are to be accepted.3. The penalties were imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Custom Act, 1962, which provides that any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act, which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 112 or abets the doing or omission of such an act is liable to a penalty. The rough diamonds imported earlier are held to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, the action or omission is in claiming clearances of rough diamonds on the basis of forged licenses, and therefore the ...

National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. These four appeals, according to the learned Advocate for the appellants, involve Rs. 12,470/-. Rs. 34,777/-, Rs. 47,165/- and Rs. 35,654/- respectively. Since the amount in each case is below Rs. 50,000/-, the appeals are first taken up for consideration as to whether they should be admitted for hearing.2. The learned Advocate for the appellants states that initially the appellants were denied Modvat credit on capital goods on the ground that the same were not used in the manufacture of final products.Accordingly, they reversed the credit, which on appeal to the Tribunal was allowed. Subsequently, the appellants filed a refund claim and they were allowed refund in cash by the original authority, which on department's appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) has been reversed.The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Rajshri Cements 2001 (44) RLT 186 (CEGAT), which held that while refund of duty paid through Mo...

Clariant (India) Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. Brief facts of the case as stated by the appellants are as follows: (i) The appellants normally clear dyes falling under chapter subheading No. 3204.29 to their depots in the packsize of 25kgs and 50 kgs. Approximately 95% of the sale from depot is in the said packsize. However, in case of balance 5% as per the requirement of the customer, these goods are packed in the packsize of 10 kgs and 5 kgs before sale. The appellants recover packing surcharge in such cases to meet the expenses for repacking of goods. (ii) The department had issued Show Cause Notices demanding duty on such packing surcharge recovered from the customer and to levy penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (iii) The appellants replied to the Show Cause Notice replying that the goods are sold from the depot and as per Rule 7 read with Rule 4 of the Central Excise valuation Rules, 2000, the assessable value of the goods sold from such depot will be the normal transaction value ...

Commr. of Cus. Vs. Palak Laser Video Club

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides in the application filed by Revenue, it is found that in Appeal No. C/1272/99 against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 1472 to 1473/99, an order was passed by a two members bench on 30-3-2005 allowing the appeal, Vide Order No. A/448/WZB/2005/C-III, dated 30-3-2005. In the same appeal against the same order-in-Appeal number and the order was passed exparte by single member on 20-5-2005, vide Order No. A/524/WZB/2005/C-IV dismissing the appeal.2. Since order dated 30-3-2005 in a two member order first in time, the subject exparte order dated 20-5-2005 of the Single Member would be 'non est'. It is held to be same....

Tal. Kalwan Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. The Judgment dated 13-8-2001 delivered by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 49 of 2001, by which the present appellant is held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is being challenged by the original accused, by this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant/accused is held guilty by the trial Court for kidnapping child Rekha @ Rakhi, daughter of Jibhau Chavan, aged about 6 years, committing her murder and trying to screen himself by concealing the dead body and other things. He is sentenced to RI for 5 years, life imprisonment and RI for 3 years on the respective counts. The trial Court was pleased to impose fine and pass default sentence also on all three counts, although of different quantum.2. The prosecution story, as can be gathered from the deposition of complainant Jibhau Chavan (PW-1 and father of the victim) as also depositions of PW-3 Ran...

Jayashri Manohar Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR379; 2006(2)MhLj537

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the communication received by her from respondent No. 6 informing her that her request for continuing in her post as a teacher in the Deaf and Dumb School was rejected. The petitioner was informed that her representation could not be considered as she did not have the requisite qualifications. The petitioner contends that she is entitled to the benefit of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 25-7-2000 in Writ Petition No. 2858 of 2000 and is, therefore, entitled to continue in service as a special teacher in the Deaf and Dumb school.2. After completion of her Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by Maharashtra State Secondary School Certificate Board in 1989, the petitioner was admitted to the Diploma in Education for Hearing Impaired (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'D.Ed.H.I.') in Swami Samartha Mookbadhir Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Solapur, The petitioner successfully complete...

Pacific Refractories Ltd. Vs. SteIn Heurtey India Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom231; 2006(4)BomCR311; 2006(3)MhLj438

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The defendant has taken out this Chamber Summons for revocation of the leave granted by me by an order dated 26-10-2005 under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to file the present suit against the defendant in this Court.2. The suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs. 28,61,938/- together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation for the goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff raised invoices in respect of the said sales. The supply however was made pursuant to a contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant as pleaded in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint.3. Neither, counsel made an application to lead evidence. Mr. Kutty, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, confined his submissions in support of his case that the leave was granted correctly only on the basis of the contract having allegedly been entered into in Bombay. Mr. Tulzapurkar, the learned Senior cou...