Mumbai Court March 2007 Judgments

Teofilo Barreto Vs. Sadashiva G. Nasnodkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR584; 2007(4)BomCR830; 2007(6)MhLj127

Daga V.C., J.1. This writ petition arising from the order dated 31st August, 2005 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2005 passed by the II Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Panji is heard finally by consent of parties at the stage of admission.FACTS:The facts required to be stated to decide this petition are as under:2. Plaintiff had instituted a suit, before Civil Judge, Senior Division valued at Rs. 38,500/- for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, inter alia, praying for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and for deletion of the entry in occupant's column of the record of rights.3. On being summoned, petitioner appeared and filed written statement, inter-alia, denying the claim of the plaintiff and preferred counter-claim, inter alia, claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 90,00,000/- from the plaintiff and for the said purpose valued the counter-claim at Rs. 90,00,000/-.4. The trial Court after trying the suit and counter-claim on merits by its judgment and order dated 31...

Erach Boman Khavar Vs. Tukaram Sridhar Bhat

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)1CompLJ111(Bom); [2008]81SCL416(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. The applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Companies Act' for short), to seek leave to file and proceed with the suit in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai filed under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882, against the Official Liquidator and one another.The Facts:2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present application is as under:The applicant herein is the owner of flat No. 12-A located in the building New Sagar Darshan, 81 /83, Bhulabhai Desa Road, Mumbai-400 026 ('the said premises' for short).M/s. Poysha Industrial Co. Ltd. ('the said company' for short), was inducted on leave and licence basis on the terms and conditions set out in the agreement of leave and licence dated June 17,1975, executed between the applicant's father Mr. B. P. Irani and the said company. The licence although expired by afflux of time the said company continued to occupy the suit premises and tendered li...

iftex Oil and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)9STJ213CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 56,736/- and penalty of equal amount is allowed, as prima facie the show cause notice does not call upon the applicants herein, the Indian company, to show cause against the recovery of service tax and penalty.Pre-deposit is therefore, waived and recovery stayed pending the appeal....

Philcorp Pte. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)7STR266

1. The appellants in this case is a foreign company based in Singapore, who was providing consultancy service to an Indian Company. They were issued a show cause notice demanding service tax in respect of the services provided to the Indian Company amounting to Rs. 3,56,387/-.2. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that since the service provider is a foreign company and since under the Finance Act 1964 service tax extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the provisions will not be applicable to the foreign national and foreign company and, therefore, service tax cannot be charged from them. It was only with effect from 16/08/2002 that the recipient of the service has been treated as service provider and liable to pay service tax. Prior to that service provided by the foreign company having no business establishment in India cannot be considered as a taxable service and, therefore, service tax cannot be recovered from it.3. We have considered the submiss...

Castrol Ltd., Uk and Castrol India Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STR254

1. The above appeals arising out of the two separate orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise involve common issues and are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. In Appeal No. ST/206/06, the Commissioner has levied service tax of Rs. 4,04,23,400/- on Castrol Ltd., UK, for the period 1997 to 2001 on the ground that as per the agreement of transfer of technology and know-how, services rendered by them were covered under the category of "Management Consultancy Services" and, therefore, being the provider of services, the UK company was required to discharge service tax liability. In Appeal No. ST/207/06, which covers the period 2002 to 2003, the Indian company i.e., Castrol India Ltd., being the recipient of such services has been held liable to pay service tax of Rs. 1,11,46,800/- + Rs. 1,81,68,000/-. In the first appeal penalty of amount equal to service tax amount has been imposed on the UK company under the provisions of Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994...

D.D. Shah and Co. Vs. Mr. Vajidali T. Kadri

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR162; 2007(3)BomCR147; [2007(113)FLR573]

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. The petitioner challenges the Judgment and Order dated 21-3-2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Revision Application (ULP) No. 38 of 2005. By the impugned Order, the revision application filed by the respondent herein against the Judgment and Order of the Labour Court dated 10-12-2004 in Complaint (ULP) No. 6 of 1991 has been allowed and the order of dismissal of the complaint passed by the Labour Court has been set aside on the ground that no chargesheet was served upon the employee prior to the termination of his services and on that count it has been held that the petitioner has indulged in unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', there was no jurisdiction to the Labour Court to allow the petitioner to establish the alleged misconduct on the part...

Mont Blanc Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Being a Cooperative S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR32; 2007(2)BomCR533; 2007(4)MhLj595

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for a writ of certiorari or an order/direction in the like nature to quash and set aside the Government Order dated 1/8/2001 issued in public interest under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Act) thereby directing the co-operative housing societies registered under the Act not to charge non occupancy charges beyond 10% of the service charges (excluding municipal taxes).2. The factual matrix leading to this petition could be briefly stated as under:The Commissioner for Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, issued a Circular on 13/3/1992 laying down that the co-operative housing societies may levy non occupancy charges upto a maximum limit of 25% of the service charges collected from the member and accordingly the first sentence in Clause (c) of bye-law No. 45(2)(iii) to be replaced with the following words,He shall pay non occupancy charges to ...

Ron Chayak, Presently Lodged in Central Jail Aguada Vs. State of Goa, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR799

N.A. Britto, J.1. The appellant herein is an accused and shall be referred to as such, hereinafter.2. The accused has been convicted and sentenced on a charge which reads as follows:That on or about 02.12.2002 between 17.30 to 21.30 hrs. at Sonnathwada, Anjuna, you were found in illegal possession of 10 grams of charas on your person and in possession of 1.31 kgs. of charas in the rented room of Maria Fernandes in your possession without any legal documents. You have thereby committed offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, read with Section 20(b)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 2001 and within my exclusive jurisdiction. 3. The accused has challenged the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Court, Mapusa, by Judgment/Order dated 08.03.2006. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the raid was conducted by PI Uday Naik/P...

Suresh Enterprises and ors. a Partnership Firm Registered Under the Pr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR834; 2007(2)BomCR792

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs who are the developers of the property of the Defendants for declaration that they have a right to sell and dispose of 45% of the constructed area as per the Development Agreement dated 22nd December, 1987, Exhibit B to the Plaint, and for a further declaration that the Defendants had no right to prevent them from carrying out the construction and development of their property and ancillary injunctions in that regard. The suit came to be filed on 26th December, 2000. The parties enter into Consent Terms on 15th January, 2001, Exhibit A to this Chamber Summons. 2. Under the Consent Terms both parties set out their reciprocal promises, obligations and conditions upon which they would obtain certain rights with regard to the property to be developed.3. The Plaintiffs seek to execute the said Consent Terms in this Chamber Summons, which has been taken out in July, 2006. 4. The Plaintiffs have applied for leave under Order 21 Rule 22 of...

Rpg Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The authorities below have rejected the request of importers for relinquishment of title to goods, viz., two cases Triple Cross Head for EXLPE Plant Type 90-150-90/50 with spare parts-1 unit, imported by them on the ground that, since the goods have not been removed from the warehouse before the expiry of the bond period permitted under Section 61, the goods are deemed to have been removed improperly with effect from 15-6-2004 from the warehouse, in the light of the judgment in the case of Kesoram Rayon v. Collector of Customs , and therefore, the importers would be liable to pay duty at the rate applicable on the date of their deemed removal from the warehouse, i.e.on the date on which the permitted warehousing period/permitted extension period came to an end.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the provisions of Section 68 dealing with relinquishment of the title are very clear. The Section reads as under - The importer of any warehoused goods may clear them for home consump...