Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-25-2003
Reported in : (2004)87TTJ(Mumbai)183
ORDERBeharilal, A.M.The departmental appeal for the assessment year 1992-93 has been directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XVII, Bombay, dated 16-11-1995. The departmental appeal and the cross-appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94 have been directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Central IV, Mumbai, dated 17-2-1997. One consolidated order is being passed for the sake of brevity and convenience; as the issues involved in these appeals are common.2. The assessee is a partnership-firm engaged in the wholesale business of dry fruit and business in real estate comprising of construction of buildings of residential flats, office premises, shops, godowns, row houses, etc. which are sold to prospective buyers. For both the divisions of business the assessee maintains one set of account books. For the construction division, the assessee has adopted estimation of profit on work-in-progress and on that basis profit is estimated every year showi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-17-2003
Reported in : 2004(2)BomCR874
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff who had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 441 of 1998 on or about 30th November, 1998, in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, for a decree of eviction and to seek possession of the subject premises as well as for recovery of rental considerations for the period from 1-12-1995 to 30-11-1998 with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum till the realization of the payment. This suit was dismissed by judgment and order dated 23-2-2001 and being aggrieved by the same the plaintiff approached the District Court in appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2001. By order dated 5-7-2001, the appeal was returned for being filed before this Court on the ground that the same was not tenable in view of its valuation shown at Rs. 22,99,440/-. The plaintiff moved an application for review and the same was rejected by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, on 21-7-2001. Hence, this returned Appeal against...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-30-2003
Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR139; 2003(6)BomCR65; 2003(4)MhLj264; 2003(27)PTC538(Bom); [2003]45SCL362(Bom)
S.A. Bobde, J. 1. This is a Plaintiffs Motion for an injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs registered design of a marker pen or a highlighter sold by the plaintiffs under the trade mark 'TEXTLINER'. The plaintiffs also claim an injunction restraining the defendants from passing-off their highlighter or marker pen under the trade mark 'TEXTLINER' by use of the impugned trade mark 'TEXTLINER' and by adopting the almost identical configuration, shape, design, colour scheme and get-up for their product.2. The plaintiffs are proprietors of registered design No. 174429 dated 1.8.1997. This registration is under the Designs Act, 1911. It was issued on 12.1.1998. The Certificate of Registration contains a pictorial representation of the plaintiffs highlighter and states as follows:'The novelty resides in the shape and configuration of the line marker in particular in the cap portion C and the ornamental surface pattern P. as illustrated.'There is an ornamental su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-17-2003
Reported in : 2004CriLJ1296; 2004(2)MhLj993
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The Petitioner herein is a resident of Chennai and on the date of filing of this petition i.e. on 22-8-2003 she was in custody of Yerawada Central Prison, Pune. The petition places on record a very sorry state of affairs inasmuch as it is pointed out therein that in spite of her acquittal in NDPS Special Case No. 16 of 1991 by the Special Court in Mumbai and in spite of that order having been confirmed in appeal, by dismissing the appeal filed by Respondent No. 3 - Narcotics Control Bureau, which appeal bearing No. 484 of 1995 was dismissed by the High Court on 13-12-2000, the petitioner continued to be retained in custody. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, invokes Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution and seeks to challenge this illegal detention. This is prayer Clause (a) of this petition. In fact, Ms. Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, informs, on a query from the Court, that she happened to visi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-26-2003
Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR201; 2003(5)BomCR790; 2003(4)MhLj50
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable for the with.2. The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 2-5-2002 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai in Appeal No. 600 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the trial Court has been dismissed. The trial Court by its judgment and order dated 28-8-2001 had decreed the suit filed by the respondents and had directed the petitioners to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises, comprising of Flat No. 7, situated on the 4th floor in a building known as Kalpataru Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited, 39th Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. The said decree was passed in a suit filed by the respondents on the ground that under the agreement of leave and licence dated 11-8-1970, the petitioners were allowed to occupy the suit premises in consideration of compensation to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-12-2003
Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR829; 2003LC898(Bombay); 2003(158)ELT274(Bom); 2004(1)MhLj497
V.C. Daga, J.1. The short question sought to be raised in this petition relates to an interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('Act' for short) which came to be amended with effect from 12th May, 2002.Factual background The factual background giving rise to the present petition is in narrow compass:2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting steel products including galvanized corrugated sheets to 120 countries. In respect of exports affected from time to time, the petitioners filed rebate claims for a rebate of central excise duty paid in respect of the exported goods.3. The present petition is concerned with two shipments of goods which were exported in 1999 and in respect whereof the petitioners claimed rebate. The petitioners exported galvanized corrugated sheets under shipping bills dated 20th May, 1999 and 10th June, 1999 and filed refund claim along with supporting documents to substantiate the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-02-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)ALLMR788; 2003(162)ELT1182(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J. 1. The source of this petition is the order dated 16-10-2002 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (W. R. Bench), Mumbai ('CEGAT' for short) - Respondent No. 2, confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - respondent No. 3, dated 30th October, 2001, refusing to condone delay in presenting the appeal against the order-in-original passed by the respondent No. 4, dated 18th February, 1999, said to have been received on 20th March, 2003.The Facts:2. The factual score depicts that on 1st August, 1994, the Central Excise Department issued a show cause notice to the 1st petitioner calling upon them to show cause; why duty amount of Rs. 4,80,788.00 should not be recovered from them on account of change in classification of the items manufactured by it as well as why the seized goods should not be confiscated. Further, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were also called upon to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-09-2003
1. Appeals 3548 to 3553/02 have been filed by the assessee and others against the Order-in-Original No. 21/Meerut/02 dated 24.5.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut. By this order the assessee Swadeshi Detergent Ltd (Appeal 3548/02) was directed to pay duty of Rs. 19,69,91,673/-. The order also imposes penalty of an equal amount on the assessee, under Section 11AC of the Act. The order also imposes a penalty of Rs. 1 crore on the assessee under Rule 173Q (2) of the Central Excise Rules. It imposes penalty of Rs. 1 crore on Godrej Soaps Ltd., Rs. 50 lakhs each on A.B. Godrej, Sudhir Awasthi and Rs. 25 lakhs on Jatinder Gurtu and Rs. 15 lakhs on S.C. Kaul.2. Two Appeals namely E/3474/02 and 3475/02 have been filed by two other appellants namely Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd and Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd against the same order imposing penalty of Rs. 1 crore each on them under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.3. Godr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-11-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)BomCR764; (2004)ILLJ632Bom; 2004(1)MhLj984
R. M. S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20th October, 2000 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa, imposing the damages for the period prior to February, 1992 as also the percentage of the damages and fixation of the compound rate of interest for the pre-discovery period.3. The challenge to the impugned order is three fold. Firstly, that it is the scheme as it exists at the time of determination of damages that has to be applied for the purpose of computation of damages irrespective of the period for which the damages are to be computed and, therefore, it was not permissible to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to apply the guidelines under the scheme which were in force prior to the date of the decision in relation to the computation of damages. Secondly, bearing in mind the provisions of law and the explanation issued by way of circulars by the Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-25-2003
Reported in : AIR2004Bom143; 2004(2)BomCR137
S. Radhakrishnan J.1. By this appeal, the appellant Company is challenging an order dated 29th March, 2003 whereby the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court has dismissed the Notice of Motion and has declined to grant any interim relief in favour of the Appellant-Company. It may be noted here that in this matter, the ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b) of the Notice of Motion No. 4541 of 2001 was granted by the Bombay City Civil Court in favour of the Appellants on 23rd October, 2001. The said prayer Clauses (a) and (b) of the Notice of Motion No. 4541 of 2001 read as under :--(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit defendants and the other activists of the Narmada Bachao Andolan be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from making any statements, declarations, utterances, writings and publications in the media regarding the Maheshwar Project which are defamatory of the plaintiff.(b) That pending the hearing and fina...
Tag this Judgment!