Mumbai Court April 2009 Judgments

S.P. Rubberchem Agency Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(240)ELT200(Bom); 2009[14]STR742; [2009]22STT385

ORDER1. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking relief for restoration of his appeal, which was dismissed on the ground of failure to deposit an amount as directed by the Tribunal. That order was made on 12-5-1999 . Petition challenging that order was dismissed on 18-1-2000. The appeal itself was dismissed on 23-3-2000.2. It appears that thereafter writ petition was before this Court challenging the said order, which was withdrawn with liberty to apply before the Tribunal. That application was dismissed pursuant to which, present petition.3. The learned Counsel submits that the appeal was dismissed on account of inability of the petitioners to deposit the amount. It is submitted that since then petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs. 47.5 lakhs though in the petition, it has been averred that amount so deposited was Rs. 32.50 lakhs by January, 2009. The learned Counsel on instructions submits that balance amount has been paid subsequent to that. Normally speaking, extraordin...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Rama Padsalgi (Smt.) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR647; 2009(4)MhLj50

Britto N.A., J.1. This appeal is directed against award dated 29-3-2005 of the learned M.A.C.T. (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Mapusa.2. Some undisputed facts may be stated to dispose off this appeal. Rama Padsalgi, the deceased husband/father of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (claimants, for short) was travelling in tipper truck No. GA-01-T-1102 belonging to respondent No. 5 (owner, for short) and operated by respondent No. 4 (operator, for short) under an agreement dated 20-5-1992 and driven by respondent No. 4 (driver, for short). The said truck met with an accident on 20-8-1998 at about 7 p.m. whilst the said truck was returning from Surla to Bicholim. Deceased Rama Patsalgi who was sitting in the cabin of the said truck died. On account of his death, the claimants filed a claim for compensation.3. The learned M.A.C.T. has come to the conclusion that the said truck was driven by the driver, respondent No. 4, rashly and negligently, and, we are not concerned with that finding.4. Responde...

Shri Satish Dattatray Vadke, Dist. Raigad Vs. Smt. Vanita Sitaram Kada ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President We heard Mr. R.K. Naik, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Nitin Gangal, Advocate for the respondent. Since, identical law point is involved in these two appeals and builder is common, therefore, we propose to dispose of these two appeals by common order. Smt. Vanita Sitaram Kadam/respondent in Appeal No.1175/2008 had filed consumer complaint No.146/2007 against builder/Shri Satish Dattatray Vadake. Shri Sadanand Narayan Thakur/respondent in Appeal No.1177/2008 had filed consumer complaint No.147/2007 in the District Consumer Forum Raigad. Builder-Shri Satish Vadake opposed the consumer complaints of Smt.Vanita Kadam and Shri Sadanand Thakur mainly on the ground of limitation. A specific contention was raised in the written statement that both the consumer complaints were time-barred. District Consumer Forum negatived the defence raised by the builder. District Consumer Forum allowed both the consumer complaints and granted ce...

Snowcem India Ltd. (Now Known as Sil Business Enterprises Ltd.) Jija M ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President: We heard Mrs.Jaya Ramchandra- Authorised Representative for appellant and respondent in person. We examined correctness of the order under challenge. The appellant company has absolutely no right to retain the deposit money, after maturity period is over. Therefore, the direction to refund the deposit money is perfectly legal and correct. Because of delay, the depositors are bound to get interest. District Forum has awarded interest @ 12% p.a. No doubt rate of interest is on the higher side. The depositors are entitled to get the compensation for mental harassment. Therefore 12% rate of interest is justified taking into consideration the compensation to be awarded to the depositors for mental harassment. The direction given in clause no.4 of the operative part of the order is not justified taking into consideration the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum. We are therefore inclined to quash and set aside the direction contained...

Puran Maharashtra Automobiles Through Its Partners (Shri Murlidhar S/O ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR39; 2009(4)BomLR1412; 2009(6)MhLj977

B.R. Gavai, J.1. By consent the appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. By way of present appeal, the appellants have challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 81/2009, thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellants.3. The appellants have borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- ( rupees One Crore Eighty Lakhs) from the respondent No. 3 Bank. The respondent No. 3 bank had issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for the sake of brevity). Since the appellants did not comply with the notice issued by the respondent No. 3 bank, an application came to be filed by the said bank before the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, for taking action under Section 14 of the said Act. The respondent No. 2 passed an order and allowed the application under Section 14 of the said Act. Accordingly, a notice was issued on 1/1...

Sandvik Asia Limited Vs. Bharat Kumar Padamsi and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR57; 2009(4)BomLR1421; [2009]92SCL272(Bom)

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this Appeal, the Appellant takes exception to the order dated 16-10-2003 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Company Petition No. 478 of 2003. That petition was filed by the present Appellant seeking sanction of the court to the Special Resolution passed by the company at its extra ordinary general meeting held on 13-6-2003 for reduction of its share capital. The Company had proposed a resolution for reduction of paid-up equity share capital. The Resolution was to the effect that the share capital of the company be reduced by paying off/returning to the holders of equity shares other than the promoters at the rate of Rs. 850/- per share i.e. Rs. 100/- by way of face value + Rs. 750/- premium per share, thereby extinguishing all such shares. The company petition was filed under Section 100 of the Companies Act seeking sanction of the court.2. That petition was opposed by the Respondents, who are non-promoter shareholders of the company. The company...

ingersoll-rand (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2041; (2009)226CTR(Bom)555; [2010]320ITR513(Bom); [2009]183TAXMAN410(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The following questions have been referred for our consideration at the instance of the assessee. They read as under:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that sur-tax payable pursuant to the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964 was not an admissible deduction in computing the total income for the year under reference?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the set-on liability under Section 15 of the Payment of Bonus Act, amounting to Rs. 24,73,865/- was not allowable as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee for the year under reference?'2. The following reference has been made by the Tribunal for our consideration at the instance of the Revenue:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that weighted deduction under Section 35B is allowable in respect ...

The State of Maharashtra Through Suresh Chandulal Tiwari, Service Food ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2083; 2009CriLJ3811

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Gangakhed, in a Criminal Case No.1/1996), whereby the Respondent came to be acquitted for the offence punishable Under Sections 2(ia)(a) read with 7(i), 2(ia)(m) read with 7(i), 2(ia)(m) read with 7(i), 14(a) and Rule 44(e) read with 16(1)(a)(2), 16(ia)(i), 16(1)(a)(i) 16(la)(2) and 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. The Respondent is proprietor of a grocery shop styled as 'M/s Omprakash Vijaykumar Sharma Kirana Stores'. The grocery shop is situated on main road at Shelgaon under Gangakhed Tahsil of Parbhani District. P.W.1 - Suresh Tiwari, at the material time, was working as Food Inspector for Parbhani District. He was duly appointed to work as Food Inspector vide Government Notification dated 6th September, 1972.3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on August 8, 1995, P.W. 1 - Suresh Tiwari, visited grocery shop of the Respondent No.1 at a...

Shri Ramdas Bhikaji Darade, President, Yeola Municipal Council Vs. the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR695; 2009(4)MhLj436

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard finally by consent and in pursuance to an Order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 29235/2008, between the parties.2. The petitioner being a member/Councillor of Yeola Municipal Council, has challenged the impugned Order passed by Respondent No. 1 dated 10.10.2008 in Appeal under Section 55-(A) & (B) of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act'). The operative part of the Order reads as under:1. As it is becoming clear that Shri Ramdas Darade, President, Yewle Municipal Council, District Nasik carried out unauthorised construction without permission before he got elected and same was not removed at his own even after he got himself elected as the President and that it has been removed by the Municipal Council, I have come to the conclusion that said act of the Shri Darade is not matching to the post of the President, I am removing S...

Mahavir Metal Mart Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR247

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. This Suit is filed for recovery of the interest payable on the amount of refund of excise duty applied for by the Plaintiff and granted by the Defendants to the Plaintiff under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1955 (the Act) with further interest at the rate of 19% per annum from the date of the Suit until payment.2. The Plaintiff was held liable for payment of excise duty. The Plaintiff disputed the liability. The Plaintiff claimed exemption. The exemption was disallowed. The Plaintiff was directed to give a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 1 Lakh. The Bank Guarantee came to be enforced on 8.2.1985. The Plaintiff was directed to pay additional amount of Rs. 1292.12 as Excise duty not covered under the Bank Guarantee on 23.11.1985. The Plaintiff paid under protest. The Plaintiff challenged the order before the Appellate Tribunal. The order of the Commissioner was confirmed. The Plaintiff challenged that order also before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the...