Mumbai Court July 2007 Judgments

In Re: Dr. Writer's Food Products Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR274; [2008]143CompCas197(Bom); 2007(6)MhLj422

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. In the present company application, the applicant has challenged and prayed to recall the order passed on 10-6-2004 by this Court in BIFR Case No. 12 of 1991 based upon the order passed by the BIFR dated 12-11-2003, opined that the Sick Industrial Company M/s. Dr. Writer's Food Products Pvt. Ltd, (for short 'DWFPL) is not likely to make its net worth exceed its accumulated losses within a reasonable time while meeting all its financial obligations and; that the company is not likely to become viable in future and; it is just equitable and in public interest and it should be wound up under Section 20, Sub-clause (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). Accordingly, the opinion was forwarded to the High Court for necessary action according to law.2. By the order dated 10th June, 2004, the Court has passed the following order:There is a communication from the Registrar, B.I.F.R. along with the records and proceedings, conveying opini...

Sanjay S/O Shrikishanji Somani and anr. Vs. Vishnupant S/O Shankarrao ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR863; 2008(1)BomCR749; 2007(6)MhLj550

ORDERS.B. Deshmukh, J.1. This petition challenges the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Parbhani below Exhibit-1, Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-44 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2006.2. A question, to be decided in this writ petition, is the power and jurisdiction of learned Principal District Judge, while considering Miscellaneous Civil Appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code of 1908.3. The Petitioners are plaintiffs and the respondent is defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 23 of 2005. Parties hereinafter are referred to their status as plaintiffs and defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 23 of 2005. The plaintiffs seek specific performance of contract, decree of mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction. The subject-matter of the suit is agricultural land bearing Gat No. 109, admeasuring 3 Hectares 45 Ares, situated at village Sailu, district Parbhani. It is pleaded by the plaintiffs that they are in actual and physical possession of the suit property since 11t...

Raymond Ltd. and Mr. Vasant Naag Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC67

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise confirming a demand of differential duty of Rs. 3,40,63,727/- along with interest and imposing penalty of equal amount upon the manufacturer and imposing penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on its General Manager (Indirect Taxation). The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that M/s Raymond Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of Man-made fabrics, Woolen fabrics and Yarn falling under Chapters 51 & 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They also manufactured Polyester Tops, Polyester Wool Blended Tops, Wool Tops and Woolen Polyester Blended Tops (hereinafter referred to as 'the said goods') and partly consumed them within the factory of production in the manufacture of yarn without payment of duty in terms of Notification 67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 and partly cleared the said goods on payment of duty to their other factories. Prior to 01.03.1994, duty on yarn and tops was payable...

Cce Vs. Modern Paper Converters

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC236

1. Heard both sides. In the instant appeal the contention of the revenue is that there is suppression of fact on the part of the assessee in not disclosing the fact of raising of debit notes. The original adjudication authority basing on this factual situation held that the demand is within the extended period of time of the Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. However, the finding of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the same and held that the demand is hit by time bar. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not discuss much about the merits of the case otherwise. The issue relates to denial of the credit availed on the inputs on the ground that subsequently debit notes were raised on the supplier of the inputs lowering the price. The contention of the assessee is that whatever the duty has been paid by the supplier, Credit is taken equivalent to that extent and when where was no refund claim by the supplier nor there was any reassessment at the supplier's end, the availment of ...

Prabhakar S/O Zabaji @ Sahebrao Sirsat Vs. the State of Maharashtra Th ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1464

K.J. Rohee, J.1. By this appeal the appellant challenges his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and punishment thereunder by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No. 244/1993 decided on 17.4.1993.2. The appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for having committed murder of Kamlabai Shankar Sirsat, aged about 55 years and Dinesh Shankar Sirshat, aged about 25 years. He was also tried for the offence of attempt to commit murder of Shankar Kashiram Shrisat aged about 65 years. Other four accused persons were tried for abetting the appellant for committing those offences.3. Accused No. 2 Zabaji @ Sahebrao, accused No. 3 Pandurang and PW 11 Shankar Kashiram are real brothers. The appellant and accused No. 4 Bhaskar are the sons of accused No. 2 Zabaji @ Sahebrao. Accused No. 5 Miraji is the son-in-law of accused No. 3 Pandurang. Kamlabai (deceased) was the wife of Shankar (PW 11). Shankar and Kamlabai we...

Nathu Hiraman Bharambe and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR481; 2007(6)MhLj289

P.R. Borkar, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of the respective parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioners, who are owners of land admeasuring 26 Are out of total 47 Are of Survey No. 286/3 (Block No. 982/2) situated at Faizpur, District Jalgaon, have filed this petition for declaration that the said land reserved in revised development plan issued by notification no. Vi. Yo. Faizpur (Su/TPV-4/8046) stands dereserved under the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and to direct the respondents to grant permission for development of the said land and to carry on their construction and also to quash the order passed by the Director, Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune dated 29.7.2004.3. It is not disputed that the land in question is owned by the petitioners. It was reserved for police quarters and police station under the revised development plan of Faizpur town. The said development plan was notified on 17.12.1987...

Oberoi Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Worli Shivshahi Co-op. Housing

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR106(Bom); 2007(5)BomCR758

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioners have invoked the provision of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'Arbitration Act') based on a initialled draft of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).2. The petitioners averred that on 1st March, 2004 MHADA gave an in-principle approval for handing over to the respondents approximately 11,827.74 (approximately) square meters of land as more particular described in the petition. 3. In April, 2004, the respondents had invited bids from various developers for redevelopment under Development Control Regulation No. 33(9) of the Development Control Regulations read with MHADA Act. 4. In April-May, 2004, the petitioners submitted their offer to acquire rights, title and interest in respect of the property of the respondents and deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-(Rupees Two crores only) with the respondent. Various other developers also submitted their offers. Meetings were held between the office bearers/representatives/me...

Doctor Pradhan Vs. Kumar Industries and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR579; [2007(115)FLR164]; (2007)IIILLJ976Bom; 2007(5)MhLj185

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition challenges the award of the Labour Court dated 30-12-1996. By this award, the Labour Court has held and declared that the appropriate government has referred the dispute which was non-existent and non-est. The Labour Court dismissed the Reference.2. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The petitioner was employed as a Chipper on a daily wage of Rs. 60/- with respondent No. 1 from October, 1992. He met with an accident on 8-4-1993 while on duty. He was paid medical benefit under the Employees State Insurance Act and a fitness certificate was issued to him on 1-2-1994 by the Doctor appointed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. The petitioner reported for work on the next day but was not permitted to resume duty. He, therefore, lodged a complaint with the Government Labour Officer and also served a demand for reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages on the respondent on 17-3-1994. The dispute between the petition...

J. Sharma, Cantonment Executive Officer and anr. Vs. S.S. Hirurkar and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR549; 2007(6)BomCR316; 2007(5)MhLj896

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition challenges the interim order passed by the Labour Court granting interim relief to the respondent workman.2. When the application for interim relief was heard, the petitioners had raised a fundamental issue as to whether the provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act are applicable to the Pune Cantonment Board. According to the petitioners, the appropriate Government for the Pune Cantonment Board was the Central Government and not the State Government and, therefore, the provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act were not applicable.3. The Labour Court refused to deal with this issue regarding its jurisdiction and proceeded to consider the interim application. The Labour Court held that there was no urgency for deciding its jurisdiction and the applicability of the Act as a preliminary issue. The Labour Court referred to certain judgments on the basis of which it concluded that there was no urgency to deal with the preliminary issue raised in respect of jurisdictio...

Nrb Bearings Ltd. Vs. Ccex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are called absent. None represented them. Heard the ld. Dr. Shri Y.D. Banga. The short question involved in the present appeal is that whether the appellants are liable o pay interest at the appropriate rate on the differential duty paid by them. Their main contention, as seen from the grounds of appeal is as follows. Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) did not considered the case law cited by the appellant such as National Fertilizers Limited v. CCE and the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE v. Machine Montell (I) Ltd. wherein it has been held that when any differential duty is paid by the assessee, before the issue of show cause notice no penalty and no interest can be imposed. It is alleged that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not looked into the above referred decisions nor made any discussion either accepting them or rejecting the plea of the appellants. The other contention is that the provisions of Section 11AB would come into play when the amount of duty has been ...