Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1993(3)BomCR313; 1995(75)ELT753(Bom)
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. This group of 36 writ petitions involves a common question as regards interpretation and scope of Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity 'Act'). All these petitions were notified on board under the caption 'Matters for Interest on Duty & DEEC Scheme'. We heard Counsel for the parties in all these petitions. 2. The question involved in these writ petitions is as under :- 'On importation of goods under OGL if the importers had kept the same in the warehouse under Section 59 of the Act and after expiry of statutory period of three months if they clear the goods under the Advance Licence issued under DEEC scheme, whether such importers are liable to pay interest on the amount of duty which was assessed and ascertained on the date of warehousing until the goods is cleared under Section 68 of the Act [excluding the free period of three months].' In all these writ petitions, facts are almost identical. For the purpose of this judgment we may set out facts of W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1986]17ITD795(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member - The revenue is aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the interest of Rs. 2,64,279 received by the assessee-company was not assessable.2. The assessee-company was setting up a sugar mill during the accounting year under consideration ending 31-3-1978. It had borrowed funds from Industrial Finance Corpn., Indian Overseas Bank, U.P. State Sugar Corpn., etc., on which during the relevant accounting year it paid interest of Rs. 9,13,380. The part of the fund so received was deposited in short-term deposits with the banks on which the assessee earned interest of Rs. 2,64,279. The assessee claimed that the said interest receipts should be set off against the interest payments made by the assessee and, therefore, no interest income was assessable in the hands of the assessee-company. The ITO, however, rejected this contention holding that the interest of Rs. 2,64,279 earned by the assessee was assessable under the hea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2004]140TAXMAN267(Bom)
ORDER UNDER SECTION 269UDPrinciple of natural justicePursuant to statement under Chapter XX-C in Form No. 37-I filed by petitioner and P , the order under section 269UD was passed on 29-8-1989 and possession of property taken on 13-9-1989 and apparant consideration was paid on 27-9-1989. The said property was auctioned on 23-3-1990 and auction purchaser was put in possession of said property on 8-6-1990. However, the instant petition was filed in July 1990 inter alia on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. Held : On the date of filing of instant petition, not only the transaction between the petitioner and the Central Government was completed but even the property purchased by latter was auctioned and auction purchaser was put in possession, therefore, the case of the petitioner would clearly fall within the category of concluded transactions and hence, the validity of order passed under section 269UD(1) on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. On 30.08.2011 the plaintiff obtained an ex-parte order of arrest of the defendant-vessel when she was in the port and harbour of Mundra. On 9.9.2011 the defendant-vessel was ordered to be released when on behalf of the defendant security in the sum of US$ 335,000.00 was furnished. This amount was deposited with Incisive Law LLC, Singapore, as the escrow agent. 2. The reason why the plaintiff filed the suit and obtained the ex-parte order of arrest was that the plaintiff suffered a loss in the sum of Rs.1,31,12,080/- being the cost of 520.300 MT of urea which was allegedly short delivered by the defendant-vessel. It is the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to an agreement dated 25.7.2011, the plaintiff had sold to State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi (STC) 50,000/- MT + 10% granular bulk urea at the price of AED 1859.13 per MT C and F FO Mundra. In order, for the plaintiff, to supply this cargo to STC, the plaintiff entered into a contract dated 27.7.2011 with one Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. On 30.08.2011 the plaintiff obtained an ex-parte order of arrest of the defendant-vessel when she was in the port and harbour of Mundra. On 9.9.2011 the defendant-vessel was ordered to be released when on behalf of the defendant security in the sum of US$ 335,000.00 was furnished. This amount was deposited with Incisive Law LLC, Singapore, as the escrow agent. 2. The reason why the plaintiff filed the suit and obtained the ex-parte order of arrest was that the plaintiff suffered a loss in the sum of Rs.1,31,12,080/- being the cost of 520.300 MT of urea which was allegedly short delivered by the defendant-vessel. It is the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to an agreement dated 25.7.2011, the plaintiff had sold to State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi (STC) 50,000/- MT + 10% granular bulk urea at the price of AED 1859.13 per MT C and F FO Mundra. In order, for the plaintiff, to supply this cargo to STC, the plaintiff entered into a contract dated 27.7.2011 with one Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... the board. the orders of the board have far-reaching effect on the affected parties. the board which was once an authority to oversee the provisions of the act working under the supervision of the central government, is now, by various amendments, a body with the attributes of a judicial body. the strict parameters of conduct as applicable to a judicial body are desirable ..... reserve bank of india gave its in-principle approval. the permission for conversion of loan into equity was received from government of india, ministry of finance and from government of india, ministry of industry. a supplementary shareholders agreement was executed on 19 june 1998. the share capital of eil was increased in the year ..... the file of the company law board to be disposed of on merits. the company applications which are disposed by the impugned order dated 14 december 2012 also stand restored to file of the company law board to be disposed of on merits. iii. the company law board will dispose of the proceeding .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... 1960 - (a) in pursuance of an agreement in writing for arbitration to which the convention set forth in the first schedule applies, and (b) in one of such territories as the central government, being satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made may, by notification in the official gazette, declares to be territories to which the said convention applies ..... of performance. 36 in these circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the learned single judge dated 20 december 2012. the mandate of section 45 is clear. the efficacy and sanctity of international commercial arbitration must be preserved. once the exclusion contained in section 45 is not ..... then obviously the discharge of the contract by such agreement/voucher is rendered void and cannot be acted upon. consequently, any dispute raised by such party would be arbitrable. in a subsequent decision in branch manager, magma leasing and finance ltd. vs. potluri madhavilata, (2009) 10 scc 103)the supreme court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: By this petition (667 of 2011) filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners seek to challenge the impugned award dated 13th July, 2011 passed by the learned arbitrator holding that the agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondents stood terminated by repudiation on the part of the petitioners and on acceptance thereof by the respondents and directing the respondents to refund of Rs.73,00,51,960/- to the petitioners within a period of 90 days of the said award. The learned arbitrator also awarded arbitration cost in favour of the respondents herein in the sum of Rs.33,00,000/-. The petitioners to this petition were respondents in the arbitration proceedings. By petition (629 of 2011) the petitioners seek interim measures. The respondents herein were claimants in the arbitration proceedings. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are set out hereinunder:- 2. By a Deed of Transfer of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... been filed on behalf of the state government. it is contended that in government resolution dated 21 january 1960 it was stated that the central government cautioned the state government about desirability to have income limit for reimbursement of fees of students lest the government may lend itself in indefinite ..... the judiciary must intervene. we have no doubt that the above conclusion of the court below is also justified. ...... under the label of self financing institutions, the colleges should not be permitted to hike the fees to any extent in order to meet the expenses to provide the infrastructure and for appointing competent teachers and ..... education till its completion to the extent of 25% of the seats. it is contended that in view of the above act read in the light of the supreme court judgment dated 12 april 2012 upholding the constitutional validity of the act, there is no scope left for the petitioners and the respondent school managements to canvass any submission on the basis .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... merely by virtue of the transferability. the petitioners have acquired the rights under the licence only in terms of the notifications and not de hors the same. the central government in terms of para 1.3 of the foreign trade policy reserved rights in public interest to make any amendments to the policy. that amendments ..... consideration and determination. 33. the foreign trade policy was amended by inserting the above condition or stipulation and in consonance with that the government of india, in the ministry of finance (department of revenue) made the amendments in the customs notification on 18th april, 2013. that the customs notification grants exemption from the duties noted above. however ..... but the holder of the licence exported the goods between august to november 2012. thus, while they claim that there is no provision either under section 25 of the customs act, 1962 or the foreign trade policy act, 1992 to amend the exemption notification or the foreign trade policy retrospectively .....
Tag this Judgment!