Mumbai Court June 2006 Judgments

Supreme Petrochem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Supreme Petrochem Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of Polystyrene and for that purpose they use Styrene Monomer as the main raw material. While the import is for their own use, part of the quantity imported is also used for sales/trading to actual users who are other notices in these set of appeals and stay applications along with their executives. In this view of the matter, all these applications are being disposed of by this common order.2. M/s. Supreme Petrochem Ltd. though had imported the goods from the foreign supplier but on high sea sales basis, sold the goods to actual users by entering into specific contract. The contracts entered into by sellers and the buyers are a composite contract on long term basis for a period of one year. Such an annual contract not only provided for import and sale of Styrene Monomer but also provides for various services rendered by the seller i.e. M/s. Supreme Petrochem Ltd. after import, at the jetty at Mumbai Port and transport of th...

Drishti Strategic Research Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC244

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty amount of Rs. 4,37,075/- which stands imposed upon the appellants on the ground that ST-3 return for the period October 2001 to March 2002, though were filed in time, no tax was paid by them in time. The appellants contention is that the tax was not paid within the period, inasmuch as they were facing financial hardship.However, Id. Advocate submits that the entire tax was deposited subsequently along with interest. As such, he submits that the quantum of penalty upon them, which is equivalent to the tax amount is harsh and of the higher side.2. After hearing the Id. DR, I found that the admitted lapse on the part of the appellants, thus justifiably invoking penal provisions against them. However, keeping in view the fact that the appellants had already deposited the entire tax amount along with interest and that they are facing financial difficulties, I direct them to deposit an amount of ...

C.H. Java and Company Vs. State Bank of India

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: I(2007)BC47

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29th April, 2003 passed by the D.R.T.-III, Mumbai allowing the respondent Bank's claim against the appellants on a bill of exchange dated 14lh September, 1992. Few facts which give rise to the appeal are as follows: Trade Aid and Paper Allied Products (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'drawer') had agreed to supply goods viz. white printing papers to the appellants. The said party had also obtained a bill discounting facility from the respondent-Bank. The bill of exchange was drawn by the drawer, who were supplier of the goods to the appellants, in favour of the respondent-Bank. The bill for Rs. 9,99,999/- was payable on or before 13th December, 1992. The said bill was accepted by the appellants for the purchase of the goods. On due date, the said bill of exchange was dishonoured by the appellants by non-payment and, therefore, the respondent-Bank filed a suit against the appellants for recovery of th...

Hargovindas Shivlal and Co. and ors. Vs. M.J. Chaudhari, Judge, Small ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR343; 2006(44)MhLj385

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioners are lessees of an open plot of land admeasuring 10700 sq.yards, situated at Vithalwadi, Nagoji Bhiku Marg, Village Ghatla. Chembur, Mumbai. On 1st June, 1969, a Leave and Licence agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and Lok Seva Education Society, the second respondent, in respect of an area admeasuring 2080 sq. yards which was an open plot of land being Survey No. 89, Hissa No. 2. The case of the Second respondent is that on the basis of the Leave and Licence agreement it erected four permanent structures for a school building thereon. Another agreement was entered into on 1st November 1975 by which the petitioners granted to the second respondent a lease in respect of land admeasuring 7762.21 sq.yards of Ghatla Village, Chembur for use as a playground and for the construction of a building as mentioned in clause 9(c) of the agreement of lease. The total monthly rent agreed was 20 paise per sq.yard i.e. Rs. 1552.24. Due to a dispute ...

Cadbury India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Controller of Legal Metrology and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR373; 2006(44)MhLj415

V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition, petitioners are seeking ropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing seizure memo dated 22-1-2003 which is annexed at Ex,B to the petition whereby all the commodities of the petitioners were seized and also for quashing notice dated 3-2-2003 which is annexed at Ex.F to this writ petition which is issued by respondent No. 1 to the petitioners.2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under.3. Petitioner No. 1 is company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and is engaged in the manufacture of Chocolates and other products at various factories all over India. Petitioner No. 2 is shareholder of petitioner No. 1 and is a citizen of India. On 22-1-2003 respondent No. 2 the Inspector, Legal Metrology Thane I Division, Thane along with other officers of respondent No. 1 visited the factory of petitioners at Pokhran Road No. 1, Thane. They drew samples from ...

Subhag S. Kavi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR412; 2006(5)MhLj618

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 4 School. A complaint was filed against the petitioner dated 13th September, 1991 at the Kandivali Police Station alleging that the School Leaving Certificate of one student by name Ms. Jigna Jayantilal Kanakia was forged. Based on the complaint a case was registered by the Borivali Police Station against the petitioner and two others under Sections 467 and 468 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 5th October, 1991 and released on bail on 8th October, 1991. The managing committee at the meeting held on 16th October, 1991 passed a resolution to suspend the petitioner with retrospective effect from 6th October, 1991. Pursuant to the suspension correspondence was exchanged between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent management on the other. It was the case of the petitioner that the charges against him were false and fabricated and that he was innocent. As no ch...

J. Walter Thompson Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)7STT167

1. After hearing both sides in this application made for waiver of pre-deposit requirement of Rs. 29,35,930/- of Service Tax and penalty of equal amount along with penalties for delay, arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals), we find that:- (a) Prima facie the applicants have made out a good case for availment of the benefit of exemption on the tax leviable on alleged services provided to clients outside India, for which repatriation in foreign exchange has been affected. (b) As regards their plea of levy of Service tax on out of pocket expenses, it is found that the issue requires to be heard in detail at the regular hearing, since there are clarifications issued by the Director General of Service Tax granting exemption from Service tax levied on such collections, based on actual. However, the Board's instruction dated 31-10-1996 is very specific to the effect that these charges have to be included to reckon Service tax. The other instructions by the Central Board of Excise and Cust...

Arif HussaIn Sabir HussaIn @ Pann Wala Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ135; 2006(5)MhLj241

J.N. Patel, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original accused No. 11 who is facing trial in POTA Special Case No. 2 of 2003 before the Special Judge under POTA impugning the order dated 25th July, 2005 passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting his application for bail.2. We have heard Mr. S.R. Chitnis, Senior Advocate and Mr. S.R. Borulkar, Public Prosecutor and gone through the record made available to us in this appeal. 3. After taking into consideration the impugned order we are of the view that the Special Judge has summarily rejected the second application for bail on the ground that the earlier Application being Bail Application NO. 17 of 2004 filed by the appellant was rejected by the trial Court against which Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2005 was filed before this Court which came to be withdrawn and the Court disposed of the appeal by passing the following order : Allowed to be withdrawn.The Special Judge also found that as there was no liberty granted to the applicant...

Suresh S/O Keshav Dole Vs. Satpuda Urban Credit Co-op. Society Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2007)BC280; 2006(5)MhLj709

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner accused has preferred this writ petition against the order dated 12-9-2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon whereby on an application filed under Section 389 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) the Court has directed to deposit a fine, 25% of the compensation amount, as a condition for a suspension of the conviction order.2. The respondent-original complainant has filed a complaint in C. C. No. 914 of 2004 before the J.M.F.C. Yawal, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) based on two cheques of Rs. 25,000/- each. The cheques were returned back and therefore, proceedings have been initiated under the N.I. Act. On 29-7-2005 after hearing both the parties, the accused has been held guilty and convicted for the six months S. I. and awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- i.e. twice of the cheque amount. The accused therefore, preferred an Appeal No. 88 of 2005 before the Sessions Court at Jalgaon. By the impugned order, the l...

A.R. Ravindra (Commander) Vs. Jagannath B. Jagtap

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)MhLj546

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. All these Revision Applications filed under Section 31F of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act), can be disposed of by common Judgment.2. The applicant in Civil Revision Application Nos. 15 of 1992 and 16 of 1992 is the landlord and respondents in the respective Applications are tenants in respect of premises consisting of two rooms each on the ground floor of house No. 1623/24, Lane No. 19, Bhimpura, Pune within the limits of Pune Cantonment. The respective tenants have filed separate Revision Applications against the self same Judgment and Order passed by the lower Court being Civil Revision Application Nos. 258 of 2001 and 259 of 2001. The lower Authority in the proceedings before it against the respective tenants has rejected the claim of the landlord of bona fide requirement of the suit premises for himself, his old aged parents and children. Even while rejecting the claim of the landlord, the...