Mumbai Court June 2006 Judgments

inderchand S/O Lakhichand Khivsar Vs. Gokul S/O Pitambar Patil and anr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(44)MhLj61

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the reversal order passed by the III Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule whereby the revision application preferred by the respondent No. 1-accused was allowed and the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule dated 17-12-2004 at Exh.71 filed by the respondent-accused, was set aside. In the result, by allowing the revision application, the revisional Court has referred the matter for expert's opinion as contemplated under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. None for the respondent No. 1 though served.3. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 has not discharged his liability or returned the amount of cheque No. 46075 drawn on Merchant Co-op. Bank, Dhule, which was issued by the pet'tioner for business purpose. On 5-2-2000, the petitioner had deposited the said cheque which was returned back with an endorsement 'Funds are insufficient'. The c...

Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. Vs. Goa Golf Club Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR640

Britto N.A., J.1. This petition is filed under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 for the winding up of the respondent-Company-M/s. Goa Golf Club Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the respondent is indebted to the petitioner-Company in the sum of Rs. 19,73,535/- which the respondent has failed to pay to the petitioner inspite of the statutory notice dated 21-4-2003. The petition is resisted on the ground that the petition has been filed to exert pressure on the respondent to give in to the unreasonable and inconceivable demands made by the petitioner from time to time and it is the petitioner which is due and payable to the respondent a sum of Rs. 5,14,406/-.2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of the petition.3. The petitioner owns a Five Star Resort known as Cidade de Goa. In terms of Section 13-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 a Casino i.e. games of electronic amusement/slot machines can be run only in a Five Star Hotel. The respondent had specia...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR329; 2007(2)BomCR482; [2006]134CompCas148(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners herein are challenging the demand made by the respondents to pay stamp duty, on the policies as being covered under Article 47A(ii) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 namely as a policy of sea insurance.2. A new facts may now be set out. Petitioner No. 1 had issued four insurance policies in favour of respondent No. 4-Mazgaon Dock Ltd. and two insurance policies in favour respondent No. 5-Oil and Natural Gas Commission for construction of rigs. Four of the policies were adjudicated and two were not adjudicated in terms of the return filed by the Superintendent of Stamps. Petitioner No. 1 is engaged in the business of general insurance and is a subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India, a wholly owned undertaking of the Government of India. Respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, hereinafter known as the Stamp Act, has certain statutory duties to perform. In the year 1985, the petitioners issued to Mazgaon Dock Ltd. a...

Rajan Baburao Patil and anr. Vs. Nagarbai Sadhu Pawar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2007)ACC629

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. I have heard Mr. Godbole appearing for the appellants, Mr. Kotak appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 and Mr. S.R. Singh for respondent No. 6.2. The appellants who are the original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have taken exception to the judgment and award dated 18th December, 1997 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solapur. The respondent-Nos. 1 to 5 were the original claimants before the Tribunal. The name of respondent No. 2 was deleted during the pendency of the claim petition and hence the name of respondent No. 2 has been subsequently deleted from the cause title of the appeal. According to the case of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants'), on 26th May, 1993 the deceased Sadhu was walking along a public road near Jagdamba Spinning Mill. At that time a Swaraj Mazda vehicle owned by the appellant No. 1 and allegedly d...

PravIn Pharma Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the matter was called no one appeared for the appellants. Heard ld. DR.2. The issue involved is classification declaration for the following products: 3. They were classifying the goods under 3003.10 instead of Heading 2108.99 of CETA, 85. Thus a short paid Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 8,512.35 for the period November, 2000 to June, 2001 and contravening Rules of Central Excise was alleged and confirmed by the lower authorities. It is found that the said goods were earlier classified by the assessee in Chapter No. 3000.10 vide their classification declaration No. 1/98-99, dated 3-6-98. The then Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Mulund Division issued a show cause notice bearing F.No. V/CDPD/MDN/IV-1/98/6348, dated 27-10-1998 as to why the said goods should not be classified under Chapter No.2108.99 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the then Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Mulund Division vide his Order-in-Or...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ewac Alloys Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against an order of Commissioner(Appeals) who had after going through material on record found as follows: Issue involved in the present appeal is regarding addition of 2% service charges being recovered from wholesales/retailer by M/s. Larsen & Turbo Ltd. sole distributor for appellants goods, in the assessable value of clearance mode for captive consumption and to M/s. Larsen & Turbo Ltd. in their factory. In the present case it is a matter of fact that the appellants were subsidiary company of their sole distributor i.e. M/s. Larsen & Turbo Ltd. Until 17/5/1993, as per the Chartered Accountants certificate from 18/05/1993 onwards, they ceased to be subsidiary company of M/s. Larsen & Turbo Ltd. And as such during the period of dispute they were not related person for the purpose of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is also not the case of the department as the show cause notice did not claim that the sales to M/s. Larsen & Turbo L...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Finoram Sheets Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC551

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner, Revenue has preferred the present appeal.2. As per facts on record respondents obtained EPCG licence for import of capita] goods with an obligation to export the final product within a period of 5 years. The capital goods were imported at concessional rate of duty and the respondents fulfilled the export obligation for the first three years. However, subsequently they were not in a position to fulfil the export obligation and applied to DGFT authorities for opting out of EPCG Scheme. Permission was granted by the said authorities to opt out of the said scheme on payment of Customs duty + interest at the rate of 24%. Such permission was granted on 9-8-1999. In pursuance to the said permission respondents paid Customs duty of around Rs. 2.70 crores (Approximately) and an amount of Rs. 38.73 lakhs (Approximately) towards interest. The above calculation of duty was made taking into consideration the partial export obligation fulfil...

Gtc Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)105TTJ(Mum.)1010

1. The above appeal has been filed by the assessee having been aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dt. 16th June, 1998 for asst. yr.1993-94 relating to the assessee.2. The sole issue raised by the assessee in this appeal pertains to the addition of a sum of Rs. 10,99,552 being provision for bad and doubtful debts claimed by the assessee and allowed under Section 143(3) proceedings by the AO, by invoking the powers under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961.3. On careful consideration of the material available with the Tribunal and analysing the same in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, we find that the original assessment for the asst.yr. 1993-94 was completed by the AO under Section 143(3) by order dt.29th March, 1996. Later on, AO issued notice to rectify the said order to disallow a sum of Rs. 10,99,552 on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts and loans and advances which was claimed by the assessee while filing the return and allowed by the A...

Shri Vitthal Ramchandra Mali Vs. Smt. Laxmi Ganpati Mali and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom298; 2006(4)ALLMR389; 2006(4)BomCR31

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. The submissions of the Advocates appearing for the Appellants in these two Appeals were heard on 04th May, 2006. The challenge in both the Appeals is to orders passed by the courts of Civil Judge, Senior Division on Application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1925) for grant of succession certificate. The question to be decided in these Appeals is whether the Appeal under Section 384 of the said Act of 1925 against the decision of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division will lie to this Court or to the District Court. In First Appeal No. 1347 of 2005, a report of the Registrar of this Court was called for on this aspect. The Report is accordingly submitted which is referred to in the later part of the judgment. 2. It will be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of law which are necessary for deciding the aforesaid question. Section 384 of the said Act of 1925 reads thus: 384.Appeal.-(1)Subject...

Shri Sambhajirao Hanumantrao Sawant-bhosale (Since Deceased by Heirs S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR43

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner is the original landlord of the agricultural land located in Survey Nos.15 and 16 of village Kurutanwadi, Taluka Changed, District Kolhapur. The land in Survey No. 15 admeasures 13 Acres and 37 Gunthas, whereas the land in Survey No. 16 admeasures 20 Acres and 15 Gunthas. The land was Saranjam Inam Jahagir and on abolition of Inam, the land came to be resumed by the Government and was re-granted to the landlord on new and permanent tenure by an order dated 8/8/1968. 2. It appears that sometimes in early 1969 proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short the Act) were commenced by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Changed and the statement of the tenant Shri Narsu Babaji Patil was recorded on 28/5/1969 and the statement of Mr. Ramrao Anantrao Kulkarni was recorded on 14/6/1976. However, before the statement of Mr. Kulkarni was recorded, the ALT passed an order on 4/10/1969 and fixed purchase price t...