Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Deepak Kochhar and Rajeev Kochhar Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd., a Company Incorp ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom248; 2006(3)ALLMR403; 2006(5)BomCR732; 2006(4)MhLj129

1. Rule Heard forthwith 2. The petitioners had preferred an Appeal before respondent No.3 They also applied for waiver of deposit in preferring the Appeal Respondent No.2 by the order of 20th June, 2003, was pleased to direct the petitioners to deposit a sum of fifty percent of Rs.3,65,00,000/-within 8 weeks of the order The petitioners admittedly did not deposit the amount As a consequence thereof, on the expiry of the period of 8 weeks, the Appeal stood dismissed pursuant to the impugned order of 20th June, 2003 The present Petition came to be filed on 18th February, 2006 The main challenge, as urged on behalf of the petitioners by the learned counsel, is that considering the language of Section 20 of The Recovery of Debts Due To Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [which hereinafter shall be referred to as 'RDB Act'] read with Section 21, it is only in the event an Appeal has been preferred against an order made under Section 19 of the Act would the requirement of deposit under...

Sangita Sunil Bhardiya Vs. Rajendra Babulal Sarnot

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR246; 2006(5)BomCR925; 2006(3)MhLj637

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard.2. Mr. Anturkar appearing for the respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present revision application. According to him, the trial Court has passed decree in suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Such decree is not amenable to revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This submission is pressed on the basis of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 115 of the Code as amended reads thus:115. Revision. -- (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears --(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:[Provide...

Mahendra Builders Vs. Parvez Ghaswala and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR641; 2006(4)BomCR824; 2006(3)MhLj668

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings. 2. In my order dated March 29, 2006, statement made on behalf of the petitioner has been recorded to the effect that the petitioner was confining the present petition in the context of allegation of breach of injunction order passed by this Court constituting Civil Contempt. Accordingly, deliberations were confined only to the said matter. It is already made clear in the earlier order that the remedy with reference to the allegations constituting criminal contempt is left open. Those proceedings will be decided on its own merits in accordance with the law. So far as the present petition is concerned, the grievance is about breach of order dated 24th June, 1993. The relevant part of that order reads thus: The defendants are hereby restrained from transferring and/or parting with the possession of the suit premises save and except permissible under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.3. The petitioner has appr...

Vaishnav Shorilal Puri and Vishal Vaishnav Puri Vs. Kishor Kundan Sipp ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR358; (2006)6CompLJ74(Bom); [2006]69SCL349(Bom)

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. All these appeals under the Letters Patent raise by and large common questions of law and facts and are therefore heard and are being decided together. These appeals arise principally as a result of a dispute between two groups of business magnets, i.e. Puri Group and Sippy Group, to claim the general agency business with an International shipping company by name Contship Containers Lines Ltd. (for short 'Contship') which is engaged in operating vessels for transport of cargo. These Sippy Group and Puri Group are having equal shares and equal number of directors in two Indian Shipping Companies by name Samrat Shipping Company Ltd. (for short 'SSCO') and Samrat Shipping & Transport Systems Ltd. (for short 'SSTS'). Both these companies are private companies. The appeals arise out of the allegations of oppression and mismanagement by the Sippy Group against the Puri Group and the proceedings under the Companies Act on account of the diversion of the Contship agency from...

Food Corporation of India and anr. Vs. Clearing and Forwarding Unprote ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR717; (2006)IIILLJ463Bom; 2006(4)MhLj407

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a statutory body incorporated under the provisions of the Food Corporation Act, 1964. Petitioner No. 2 is an ex-Senior Regional Manager of petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is a statutory Board established under the provisions of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mathadi Act'). Respondent No. 3 in exercise of the powers conferred upon it, under the Mathadi Act has established a Board known as 'Clearing and Forwarding Unprotected Dock Labour Board for Greater Mumbai, Thane and Raigad Districts' (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Board'). It is the case of the petitioners that they are approaching this Court on account of acts of respondent nos. 1 and 2 who seek to impose the provisions of the Mathadi Act on them, thereby infringing the fundamental right of freedom of trade guaranteed under Article19(1)(g) of the Const...

Smt. Sonabai S. Waghade Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3423

J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard Shri Kakde, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jaiswal, learned APP for the respondents.2. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, seeking a relief in the nature of writ or direction, that this Court should order an inquiry into the mailer of death of her son viz., Pandurang 3/0 Shivram Waghade, in the District Prison, Wardha and further direct Respondents No. 3 & 4 to register offences against the police personnel working in the Police Station, Ashti, District Wardha and District Prison, Wardha, for causing arrest of her son and torturing him in custody as a result of which he died. The petitioner has also claimed a sum of Rs. Five lakhs by way of compensation for herself and her two grand sons who are minor.3. It is the case of the petitioner that her son Pandurang came to be arrested by Police Station, Ashti, District Wardha on 15,5.2002 and beaten by the pol...

Nagreeka Foils Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009[13]STR101

ORDER1. Heard Mr. Vipin Kumar Jain, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.S. Jetley, the learned Counsel for the revenue.The following substantial question of law arises in this appeal:Whether the Tribunal was correct in dismissing the appeal without assigning any reason, merely by stating that since the Commissioner (Appeals) has already granted substantial relief, further reduction or setting aside of the penalty is not called forAdmit.Mr. P.S. Jetley, Advocate wavies service for the revenue.2. The appeal is heard finally at this stage.In challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appellant set up the following grounds in the memo of appeal before the Tribunal:9.1 Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confiscating the goods under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, without specifying that as to which sub-clause of Rule 173Q(1) was being sought to be invoked against the appellant. Appellant submits that it is well settled law that provi...

Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

The appellant M/s. Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Super Milk Makers Pvt. Ltd.) were engaged in the manufacturing of Ice-cream (Ice-Candy) falling under Chapter heading 21-05 of Central Terrific Act, 1985.1. On verification of their sale pattern it appear that M/s. Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. had entered into an agreement dated 13-12-1992 with M/s. Vadilal Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Nematic Marketing Pvt. Ltd.) for sale of marketing rights of the ice cream and all other products. In terms of this agreement the marketing rights were acquired by M/s. Vadilal Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 80,00,000/- for a period of 5 years. Relevant terms of the agreement for the period of 1-4-1993 to 30-3-998 were as under: (i) M/s. V.D.I.I. shall sell and M/s. V.M.P.L. shall purchase all products manufactured by M/s. V.D.I.L. at price mutually agreed from time to time. (ii) M/s. V.M.P.L. shall make arrangements to sell and/or resell th...

Ashok Dashrath More and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ143CAT

1. The question of law and facts involved in these two O.As. are common and therefore, it will be convenient to dispose of them by a common judgment.2. The applicants herein are seeking the relief of regularization in Railway service on the basis of service mentioned in their casual labour card. It is stated that the applicants have previously worked as casual labour with the respondents for various period. The casual labour cards show that all of them have put in more than 120 days of service in Railway. The names of the applicants are borne on live register. The Railway Board framed a scheme of regularization of casual labour by order dated 09.10.1998. As per the said scheme, casual labour borne on the live register and supplementary live register, are to be regularized by screening. Various conditions have been prescribed for regularization of casual labour. Initially the condition regarding educational qualification and age were fixed and the same were relaxed from time to time. O...

Catalco Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The benefit of SSI exemption under Notification Nos. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86, 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 has been disallowed to the appellants herein, who are engaged in the manufacture of inorganic chemicals falling under Chapter 28 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on the ground that they were 100% subsidiary company of M/s. Catalyst (India) Pvt. Ltd., which was not an SSI unit.The extended period of limitation has been applied against the appellants for confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 19,10,810/- (Rupees Nineteen lakhs ten thousand eight hundred ten only) on clearances during the period from July, 1992 to March, 1997. Penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) has been imposed upon the applicants and land, plant, building and machinery etc. belonging to them and used in the manufacture/storage and removal of excisable goods has been confiscated with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only).2. W...