Mumbai Court June 2006 Judgments

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)MhLj624

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The petitioner seeks an order making an award dated 15-9-2000 a rule of this Court and for a decree in terms of the said award under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. By the said award, the arbitrator awarded a sum of about Rs. 44 Crores in favour of the petitioner together with interest thereon at the rate of 11% per annum from 8-11-1994 till payment and a sum of Rs. 1,51,000/- towards costs.3. The respondent filed Arbitration Petition No. 150 of 2001 to challenge the award. The petition was dismissed by an order dated 28-1-2002. Appeal No. 473 of 2002 filed by the respondent against the order dated 28-1-2002 was dismissed by an order dated 2-7-2002. The Appeal Court concluded its judgment in the following termsAppellants are granted six week time to comply with the awards.4. Against the order of the Appeal Court, the petitioner filed a Petition for Special Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, by an order dated 14-8-2003 admitted the Ap...

Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Kemo Industries and Allied ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2007)BC72; 2006CriLJ3703

ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. By this present petition a challenge has been made to a Criminal Case S.T.C. No. 264/94, wherein, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pachora, by an order dated 12-1-1996 has issued a process Under Sections 420, 500 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., on perusing police report, as per Section 202 of Cr. P.C. The present petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Cr. P.C. which is pending since 1990. There has been an in term order since 28-2-1996.2. As respondent No. 1 failed to deposit the instalment of loan regularly, therefore, notice was issued on 23-2-1995 by the petitioner-Bank. On 6-7-1995, Dispute Nos. 227 and 224 of 1993 filed Under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for the recovery of the said loan along with the interest. In the said dispute an application was filed for attachment before judgment.3. In the said application dated 1-10-1990, there are an usual averments made about ap...

Ccex Vs. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. This is an appeal filed by the applicant Commissioner against the impugned order-in-appeal under which it has been held that since the extended period was invoked, the Show Cause Notice having been issued by the Assistant Commissioner and adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, suffers from legal infirmities. The learned SDR appearing for the department states that the demand of duty is in respect of seized goods and hence, the demand cannot be hit by the provisions of time bar and in any case, the show cause notice has been issued within six months from the date of seizure 2. Shri R.D. Wagley, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents states that duty demand relates to Audio Cassettes and CDs seized from the godown of M/s ABCL on 23.6.1997 whereas the show cause notice, in this case, was issued on 19.12.1997. He, further, argues that since the goods were not seized from the appellants' premises but from the premises of M/s ABCL and obviously the same woul...

Abdul Karim Mohammed Shaban Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3658

1. The appellant was tried along with four other accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Greater Bombay on a charge of having committed offence under Section 143, 144, 147, 148 and Section 302 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment and order dt.30.3.00, the learned Trial Court found only the appellant(Original accused No. 2) guilty of having committed offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code so convicted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000 i.d. to undergo R.I. for six months. The trial court acquitted original accused No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted the original accused No. 1, 3 and 4 for having committed offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for a period already undergone. All the accused were acquitted of the charge of forming an unlawful assembly having an object to commit murder of the deceased, Sayyed Farukh Say...

Shri Ishwara Sheku Nangare (Since Deceased by Heirs Shri Mahadeo Ishwa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR656; 2006(5)BomCR65; 2006(5)MhLj299

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. Both these petitions filed by the tenant and landlord respectively impugned the same order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 26/8/1985 in Revision Application No. 139 of 1983, whereby the said revision was partly allowed. 2. Agricultural lands admeasuring 5 acres and 5 gunthas in total from two different survey numbers, namely, Survey Nos.264/2 and 265/2 of village Ghunaki in Taluka Hatkanangale of Kolhapur District were the Patil Inam lands and granted to Shri Vishwasrao Dattajirao Ingale of village Ghunaki. Shri Ishwara Sheku Nangare was the tenant cultivating the said land as on 1/4/1957 and as at present the land is part of one single Block No. 1017-E. As the lands were Inam lands, the proceedings for statutory purchase of the land by the tenant could not be instituted and more particularly under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short the Tenancy Act). However, the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Off...

Videocon International Ltd. Vs. Video Link and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR938; 2006(44)MhLj425

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel appearing for the parties. Rule. Shri Shriram S. Kulkarni waives notice for the respondents. As short question of law arises, Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent.2. This revision application takes exception to the judgment and order dated 13th September, 2005 passed by the District Court Pune at Pune in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2005. By the said decision the District Court allowed the Appeal preferred by the respondents and passed the following order:ORDER(1) Appeal is allowed.(2) The judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court in M.A. No. 518/2004 is hereby set aside.(3) The judgment and decree passed in Spl. C.S. No. 1824/97 dated 13-7-2004 is hereby set aside.(4) The learned trial Court to decide the suit on merit by giving sufficient opportunity to the parties.(5) The Special Civil Suit No. 1824/97 be restored on the file on its original stage. For the same, the applicant to pay cost Rs. 500/- to the respondent and to depos...

Pipla Education Society Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR410; [2006(111)FLR942]; 2006(5)MhLj558

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Shelat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 to 3.2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31-12-1997 whereby respondent No. 2/ the Deputy Director of Education has exercised the power under clause 97.2 of Secondary School Code and imposed 25% penal cut on non-salary grant payable to the petitioner/society for the year 1997-98.3. Mr. Shelat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the instant case one Shri D. C. Karvekar at the relevant time was Headmaster. The school was derecognized and thereafter the services of Mr. Karvekar came to be terminated by the Management. It is further contended that against the order of termination Mr. Karvekar has filed appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. It is contended that Mr. Karvekar has also made an application for grant of s...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Firoz Khan

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]313ITR123(Bom)

1. Not on board.2. By consent of the parties all these appeals are taken on board for hearing since both parties have agreed that the questions of law raised in all these appeals have been covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Abdulgafar A. Nadiadwala v. Asst. CIT : [2004]267ITR488(Bom) .3. Both parties jointly prayed that all the appeals be disposed of in terms of the said judgment of this Court and the questions of law reproduced herein below be answered accordingly.(a) The substantial question of law arising in these appeals is regarding the correct interpretation of Section 80HHC on the export of overseas exhibition/broadcasting rights of cinematographic films ?(b) Whether licences for exhibition/broadcasting rights of cinematographic films is export of merchandise/goods, therefore, eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC?4. Considering the joint prayer made by the parties to the appeals, the questions of law framed in all these appeals are answered in favour of t...

Padamshree Dr. D.Y. Patil S.S.K. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC381

2. In both the appeals issue involved is the same i.e. denial of modvat credit on capital goods and realization of penalty and interest. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants relied on the following decisions to support his contention that the components/ spares / accessories are covered within the definition of capital goods. He relied on provisions of Rule 2(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2001. It defines: i) all goods falling under Chapter 82, Chapter 84, Chapter 85, Chapter 90, heading No. 68.02 and sub-heading No. 6801.10 of the First Schedule to the Tariff Act; ii) Components, spares and accessories of the goods specified at (i) above, Used in the factory of the manufacturer of the final products, but does not include any equipment or appliance used in an office.3. Ld.Counsel further relied on the decision in the case of N.R.C. Ltd. reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1012 (Tri-Mumbai) wherein Tribunal interalia held that "Definition of Capital Goods in the Table to Rul...

Anil Dang and Multiflex Lami Print Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.1 These appeals are filed by the company and its Managing Director aggrieved from the order of Commissioner holding the company liable to Central Excise duty & penalty under Rule 173A and Rule 25 of the Rules along with a demand of interest thereon & penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on the Managing Director under Rule 209A and Rule 26 of the Rules.1.2 The company is engaged in the manufacture, inter alia, of 'plastic laminated film and pouches" at their factory at Mahad and hold necessary registration. They started a processing unit in Silvasa in their own name where manufacture of pouches falling under Heading 3923.90 was undertaken. They were carrying cut the activity of slitting and cutting of duty paid plastic laminated films, into smaller rolls up to August 2001, thereafter they stopped both these activities.1.3 They had cleared plastic film on payment of duty to Silvasa unit.The jurisdictional officers issued a notice alleging that the said activity of slitting and cutt...