Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Uma Kumar Vs. Reunion Electrical Manufacturers P. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]145CompCas823(Bom); (2009)20VST162(Bom)

S.J. Vazifdar J.1. This is a petition under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking winding-up of the respondent-company.2. According to the petitioner, the company is indebted to her in the sum of Rs. 13,19,853.48 together with interest thereon. The petitioner carries on business as the sole proprietor in the firm name and style of M/s. Kandhan Electricals and Engineers. The petitioner's case is that pursuant to purchase orders placed by the company she supplied goods on the terms and conditions contained in 58 invoices, the details whereof are tabulated in paragraph 8 of the petition. The invoices were issued during the period April 9, 2001 to November 3, 2001.The only defence is that the claims are barred by limitation as the petition was filed on August 9, 2005.3. By its letter dated November 5, 2001, the company acknowledged its liability in the sum of Rs. 6,61,540.27 by a letter dated November 22, 2001, the company assured the petitioner that it would make paymen...

Mayank Electra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Id. Counsel for the appellants inter alia submitted that the order dated 16-3-2005 passed by this bench is an ex parte order and the factual position could not be brought to the notice of the bench which resulted in the present order. He submitted that after 1-4-2000 the appellants were not required to pay 10% of the input duty. Therefore, the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by the decision in the case of Tejas packaging v. CCE, Mumbai-V .3. Since the issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by the aforesaid decision and this decision was not brought to the notice of the bench at the time of passing the order dated 16-3-2005 which is an ex parte order, I recall the same and following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, allow the appeal filed by the appellants....

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. M.B. Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(207)ELT225Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After rejecting the stay petition filed by the Revenue, we take up the appeals itself, inasmuch the same have been filed on the basis of authorization given by Commissioner of Customs (Import), against an order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Import). It is seen that the impugned order was passed by Commissioner of Customs (I) on 27-1-05.Authorization letter has been issued by Commissioner of Customs (Import), which reads as follows : I have gone through the Order-in-Original No. CAO-No.CC(YGP) 01/2005 adj. ACC, dt. 17-1-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Sahar, Mumbai. For the reasons recorded in the grounds of appeal (enclosed herewith), I am of the considered opinion that the Order-in-original cited above is neither legal nor proper. Hence, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Sub-section (4) of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962, I hereby authorize Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Group VB, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Andheri (E), Mumbai to fil...

Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Limited, a Company Incorporated Under t ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR86; 2006(204)ELT237(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. By consent of parties, the appeal is takenup for final hearing. 4. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') has filed this appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 to challenge the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ('CESTAT' for short) on 11th March, 2005. 5. The issue raised before the Tribunal was, whether, the show cause notice issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 9th August, 2001 was time barred The Tribunal held that under Section 28 of the Customs Act, the relevant date of adjustment of duty after final assessment in the case of provisionally assessed goods is the date on which the amount paid provisionally is credited in to the government treasury as duty and not the date on which refund order or refund cheque was issued. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that in the present case, although the refu...

Shri Mohamad Ninoo Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Through the General M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR15; 2006(2)BomCR719; [2006(109)FLR538]; (2006)IILLJ1149Bom; 2006(3)MhLj428

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting his Original Application seeking quashing of charge-sheet issued to him by the employer - Union of India (Indian Railway).2. The petitioner was employed as temporary khalasi from 6/9/78 and as required by Regulation of the railway, he filled an attestation form furnishing true and detailed information about him to the railway administration. This was done on 23/9/79. In this attestation form there was no mention of his arrest or of his trial or of the result of Sessions Case No. 46/79.3. After the sessions trial was decided, the result was communicated by the petitioner to the railway administration and as a consequence of that order, the administration proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner. This was done without following process of natural justice. Obviously, the termination was stigmatic. The petitioner, therefore, filed a Regular Civ...

Ajay Madhukar Thakur Vs. General Manager, Kalyan Telecom District and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR367; 2006(5)BomCR714; 2006(3)MhLj437

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to assail order passed by the Division Engineer (Group), Palghar, whereby his private telephone connection and PCO Booth connection were disconnected.2. The petitioner was using the private telephone connection bearing No. 74371 and also was running business of STD PCO Booth having STD facility at telephone connection No. 70675. He was having parallel connection of STD PCO Booth at his residence on the private telephone line. His both the telephones were disconnected by the respondents. He made representations to the concerned authorities. His representations were turned down.3. According to the petitioner, the telephone facilities were disconnected without giving him opportunity of hearing. He was not served with any notice before disconnecting both the telephone facilities. He is a bona fide consumer and used to regularly pay telephone bills. He has not tampered with any telephone line. Yet the respondents disconnected faci...

Kantabai W/O Sureshchandra Doshi and ors. Vs. Ahmed Khan Chand Khan (D ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2006)ACC266; 2006ACJ2481; 2006(4)ALLMR305; 2006(5)BomCR672; 2006(4)MhLj161

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. This group of Appeals, involve common questions of law and fact, and therefore are heard and decided by this common judgment.A) MACP. No. 221 of 1991, was filed by one Kantabai Wd/o Sureshchandra Doshi and others 4, against Ahmed Khan s/o Chand Khan, deceased through Legal heirs and National Insurance, Company Ltd. This MACP. No. 221 of 1991 was filed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. In this MACP No. 221/1991, it was alleged that one Sureshchandra Doshi sustained injuries in vehicular accident and died. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation along with interest @ 12% p.a. by judgment and award dated 13-1-1999. This judgment and award passed in MACP. No. 221/1991, is challenged by filing First Appeal No. 312/2000 for enhancement of the amount of compensation.B) MACP No. 220/1991 was filed by one Smt. Pramodini wd/o Subhashchand Kasliwal and 4 others against legal heirs of deceased Ahmed Khan s/o Chand Khan and...