Mumbai Court February 2007 Judgments

Gulabchand Motilal Rathi Vs. National Textile Corporation (Govt. of In ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR465; 2007(3)BomCR1018

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This is plaintiffs appeal against dismissal of suit for damages and compensation for malicious prosecution. He claimed compensation and damages of Rs. 7,55,000/-in Special Civil Suit No. 73/1986, which has been dismissed by the Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Nanded.2. The Respondent No. 2 Nanded Textile Mills was previously known as 'Osmanshahi Mills' and was established at Nanded by Ex Ruler of Hyderabad State. It was taken over by Respondent No. 1 National Textile Corporation, somewhere in 1975. The plaintiff/appellant deals in business of cloth. He had dealings with defendant No. 2 -Nanded Textile Mills since more than 16 years before the incident of his prosecution. He used to run cloth business under name and style as 'Shri Balaji Traders' at Nanded from 1965. He used to purchase varieties of cloths from the defendant No. 2, by making payments through Bank. He was having overdraft facility to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lacs) with the Union Bank of India...

Prakash Pandurang Sawant Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR200; 2007(5)BomCR823; [2007(114)FLR675]

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the workmen have questioned an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal on a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Court both counsel appearing for the Petitioners and counsel appearing for the management of the Respondent Bank have urged submissions in Writ Petition 2348 of 2006 as the lead petition. The learned Counsel are agreed that the facts of that Writ Petition are representative in nature to cover the cases of all the workmen involved in this batch. The awards of the Tribunal are pari materia and since common questions of law have been urged in the entire batch of petitions, the petitions are, by consent being disposed of together. 2. Prakash Pandurang Sawant, the Petitioner before the Court in Writ Petition 2348 of 2006 was employed as a Peon on a temporary basis by the First Respondent. The initial date of appointment w...

Venkatesh K. Patil Vs. National Auto Accessories Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(114)FLR932]; [2008]86SCL142(Bom)

N.A. Britto, J.1. This appeal is filed under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, against the order dated 16-12-2005, by which the Official Liquidator has disallowed the claim made by the appellant in the sum of Rs. 1,49,664 but has allowed the appellant to be paid a sum of Rs. 23,509.2. The appellant was working as a helper on a monthly salary of Rs. 3,118 with the company in liquidation. The appellant had filed the said claim before the Official Liquidator, after claims were called for in terms of rules 147 and 148(1) of the said Rules. The appellant filed his claim for Rs. 1,49,664, which according to the appellant, represents his unpaid wages from 1-7-1997 till 10-4-2001.3. Shri Lobo, the learned amicus curiae, has firstly submitted that the impugned order does not disclose any grounds or reasons which were required to be stated in terms of Rule 163 of the aforesaid Rules. I find that there is substance in the said submission of Shri Lobo. Rule 163 of the aforesaid Rules ...

KeihIn Fie Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC269

2. The issue involved in the present appeal is denial of cenvat credit of 100% on the capital goods during the subsequent financial year. The appellants herein engaged in the manufacture of carburetors falling under CSH No. 8409.00 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1944. During the scrutiny of the record of the appellants it was observed that they have availed cenvat credit on capital goods to the tune of Rs. 1,72,354/- vide cenvat entry No. 70/31.5.2004 against bill of entry No. 803937 dated 18.2.2004. As per the provisions of Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, the cenvat credit of capital goods to be availed should be 50% of the duty paid in the corresponding duty paying documents. The total CVD paid on these goods was Rs. 1,72,354/-, that they availed 100% cenvat credit in the same financial year. The show cause notice dated 13.1.05 was issued for recovery of excess cenvat credit of Rs. 86,177/-. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 86,177/-,...

Commissioner of Customs (i) Vs. Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for condonation of delay of 13 days in preferring the above appeal is allowed, in view of the explanation contained in the COD application.2. Now we take up the application of the Revenue for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has extended the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 21/2002-Cus. dated 1-3-2002 under serial No. 357 of the table thereto, which covers "Parts for repair of dredgers". All parts for repairs of dredgers irrespective of the heading under the Customs Tariff under which they fall for classification, are covered by serial No. 357 of the table to Notification 21/2002. The case of the department is that since the goods in question are engines, they cannot be considered as parts in view of the HSN Explanatory Notes to Section XVII.3. We find that no prima facie case for stay has been made out as prima facie it is not disputed that the goods are otherwise parts and prima facie they are parts for repairs of dredg...

Bhayanagar Metals Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC170

1. The brief facts of the case which are relevant for better appreciation of the dispute are that the appellants herein were awarded a contract to supply IFWT (Integrated Fixed Wireless Telephone) and FWT (Fixed Wireless Terminal) phones to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) / Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL). Under the contract the appellants were to supply phones and also to render maintenance service for a period of five years which services include providing infrastructure compatibility wherever the phone is used. They were also required to provide the service of facility for upgradation of the phone's functions from 2g network to 3g network. They imported from M/s. L.G. Electronics, cellular phones, both IFWT and FWT. The phones were operated under the CDMA Technology. For imparting additional functions to the phones and for maintenance thereof, in the manner desired by BSNL / MTNL and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract for supply, the appellants...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Wyeth Lederle Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Mum.)889

1. This bunch of two appeals, and two cross-objections, pertains to the same assessee, involve interlinked common issues and was heard together. As a matter of convenience, therefore, these appeals and cross-objections are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.2. In the appeals filed by the Revenue, following common grievances are raised for both the years: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to grant benefit of provision of Section 80HHC in respect of advance import licence of Rs. 31,10,980 by holding wrongly that it is covered under cl. (iiib) of Section 28. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the point of cost of steam recovered from Cyanamid Agro Ltd. relying on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Bangalore Clothing Co. though the Department has 3. We will first take up th...

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR430

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These Appeals have been referred to me by the Honble the Chief Justice, pursuant to a Judgment and Order of the Division Bench of this Court due to their conflicting views, for deciding the question raised in their Judgment and Order dated 20th and 21st October, 2005 passed by the Division Bench in First Appeal No. 251 of 1996 with First Appeal No. 1476 of 1996; in accordance with the provisions of Section 98(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. There has been difference of opinion between two of my Learned Brother Judges R.M.S. Khandeparkar J. and V.M. Kanade J. 2. A brief summary of the facts of this case is as follows:On 16th February, 1980, the State of Maharashtra issued a notification under Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (hereinafter the MRTP Act) for acquiring land of the Respondents/claimants for the purpose of development. Thereafter the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter the SLAO) passed an award and granted com...

Shri Shaba Laxman Pilankar, Omkar Traders, Vs. State, Through Casmiro ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ2577

N.A. Britto, J.1. Admit. By consent heard forthwith. 2. This revision petition is filed by the accused, whose conviction has been upheld under Section 16(1A)(i) read with Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (Act, for short), by Judgment/Order dated 10.11.2006, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji. 3. The Petitioner No. 3/A3, is the proprietor of the establishment known as Omkar Traders and the Petitioner No. 1/A1 was his salesman. Both the said accused were prosecuted by the Food Inspector along with the establishment with the allegation that the accused No. 3 had sold through accused No. 1 to the Complainant- Food Inspector, for the purpose of analysis, 450 grams of turmeric whole, for a sum of Rs. 18/-, which when analysed by the Public Analyst, was found to contain insect damaged extraneous matter of 73.0% by weight as against the permissible limit of 5.0% by weight as prescribed by item No. A.05.20 of Appendix B, of ...

Encore Electronics Ltd., a Limited Company Incorporated Under the Comp ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR221; 2007(5)BomCR262; (2007)109BOMLR639; LC2007(2)84; 2007(35)PTC714(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Defendant in a suit for infringement and passing off is in appeal against an interlocutory order of injunction granted by the Learned Single Judge on 23rd September, 1997. 2. The Respondent before the Court instituted a suit for injunction restraining the Appellant from in any manner using the mark 'Encore' or any other deceptively similar mark in relation to electrical or electronic goods including dish antennae. The action was based on a case of infringement and for passing off. The Plaintiff is a registered proprietor of various trademarks including the word marks Anchor, Ankur, Anchor, Ankar, Anker, Ansor and Ancor. Registration has been granted to the Plaintiff in respect of goods falling in Classes 9 and 11 of the IVth Schedule to the Trademark Rules in relation to a large number of electrical appliances and electronic goods. The Plaintiff was incorporated on 11th June, 1990. The trademark 'Anchor' which forms the subject matter of the proceedings was f...