Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2006]130CompCas295(Bom); [2006(106)FLR551]
N.A. Britto, J.1. This is a complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the accused.2. Shri V.S. Khatre who was the manager of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed a complaint under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short), against accused No. 1 which, according to him was an establishment under the Act having been allotted Code No. 32-28-67 and against accused No. 2 who was director and occupier of the said establishment named M/s. Cortalim Shipyard and Engineers P. Ltd.3. The complaint was filed for the failure to pay the contributions for the wage periods of October, 1992, to May, 1993, which were payable in terms of regulations 31, 39, and 40 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950.4. The complaint was filed after the sanction was accorded by the Regional Director of the said Corporation.5. Although the sanction was obtained to prosecute the principal employer, i.e., A2 and the said establishment M/s. Cortal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)BomCR207; 2002(84)ECC46; 2002(142)ELT319(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (Board for short) dated 7-4-1998 and consequent show cause notice dated 10-8-1998 alleging therein that the Petitioner No. 1 M/s. Century Rayon has wilfully suppressed the fact of manufacture of 'Cinder' with an intention to evade payment of excise duty (duty for short) and evaded duty to the tune of Rs. 12,39,350/- and why the same be not recovered from them with penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules for short) framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Act for short).FACTS IN BRIEF:The 1st petitioners herein are the Division of Century Textile Industries Ltd., a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of excisable goods, having its factory, inter alia, at Shahad, Taluka - Kalyan, Dist. Thane. The 2nd petitioner is the Vice President (Finance) of the first Petitioner/Company.3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(147)ELT490Tri(Mum.)bai
2. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Appeal No.581/97 made in filed No. (24-KDL) CUS/COMMR/(A)/AHD dated 8.10.1997 whereunder he had held that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Kandla made in Order-in-Original No. KDL A.C./04/96 APPB. G.R.I dated 29.11.1996 confirming the duty short levied amounting to Rs.22,57,65,172/- demanded under show cause notice dated 30.10.1996 was wrong and allowed the appeal of the respondents.3. Respondents had been regularly importing heptene/nonene at Kandla.They were using these chemicals for manufacture of oxo chemicals at their factory. There was a dispute with regard to the classification as to whether heptene/nonene could be classified as "AIF/Motor Spirit" or "otherwise". According to the opinion of the Chief Chemist, C.R.C.L., New Delhi, if end use and flash point criteria are taken into consideration, then he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1974]97ITR334(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference as many as 10 questions have been referred to this court for its opinion, some at the instance of the assessee and some at the instance of the department and the basic or primary facts out of which these several questions arise may be stated thus : There is a public limited company called the Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd., which carries on the business of supplying electrical energy, originally to Bulsar, Bhiwandi and Belgaum. On 1st April, l951, it took over two other electric supply companies known as Ajmer Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and Jalgaon Electric Supply Co. Ltd. under separate amalgamation agreements sanctioned by this court by two orders dated 20th July, 1951. Copies of the orders sanctioning the amalgamation together with agreements of amalgamation in the case of each have been annexed as annexure 'A' to the statement of the case. The Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. also purchased the undertakings with all the assets minus certain asset...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.S. Oka, J. THE CONTROVERSY 1. The issue which arises for consideration in this group of Appeals is whether the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Harsha Nitin Kokate v. The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited and Others (2010(3)Mh.L.J 780)is correct. In Harsha Nitin Kokate's case, in paragraphs 24 and 25, it was held thus: 24. In the light of these judgments section 109A of the Companies Act is required to be interpreted with regard to the vesting of the shares of the holder of the shares in the nominee upon his death. The act sets out that the nomination has to be made during the life time of the holder as per procedure prescribed by law. If that procedure is followed, the nominee would become entitled to all the rights in the shares to the exclusion of all other persons. The nominee would be made beneficial owner thereof. Upon such nomination, therefore, all the rights incidental to ownership would follow. This would include the right to transfer the shares, pledg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, seeking to quash the orders dated 1 April, 2009 and 7 January, 2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ( DRAT ) in Appeal No.79 of 2008. By the order dated 1 April, 2009 the DRAT granted a complete waiver of deposit under section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act ). By the order dated 7 January, 2014 the DRAT entertained the appeal filed by the borrower (Respondent No.1 herein) on merits and thereafter set aside the order and judgment dated 26 March, 2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai ( DRT ) in Securitization Application No. 17 of 2007....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. By these two Sales Tax References, the Second Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (for short the MSTT ) has referred the following questions of law for an opinion of this Court under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short BST Act ). These references have been preferred at the instance of the Applicant. The question of law referred for our opinion are as under:- (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of the Schedule Entries C-II-17 and C-II-46A appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, was the Tribunal legally justified in holding that the hard-anodised utensils sold by the appellant under his sale invoice dated 12.01.1995 is a heat-resistent cookware under the Schedule Entry C-II- 46A and hence does not get covered by the Schedule Entry C-II-17? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of the Schedule Entries C-II-24 and C-II-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Defendants for dismissal of the present suit under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Code ), as barred by res judicata, or alternatively, for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. 2. The Plaintiffs claim to be registered proprietors and users for a long time of the trade mark MANIKCHAND and have filed the present suit alleging infringement of their trade mark and passing off of goods by the Defendants by the use of the mark MALIKCHAND , which is deceptively similar to the trade mark MANIKCHAND . It is the Plaintiffs' case that they are engaged in manufacture and marketing of diverse range of goods such as tea, packaged drinking water, chewing tobacco, pan masala, gutkha and mouth freshners, etc. and have adopted and used the trade mark MANIKCHAND for marketing their goods including chewing tobacco since the year 1961, the name MANIKCHAND being the middle name of Plaintiff No.1. (As of the date of the suit, as o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
K. L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent no.2, dated 5th September, 2013 along with public notice dated 24.02.2015 and the proceedings of advertisement No. 12/2014 by which respondent No.2 has fixed tariff. The petitioner has further challenged the order passed by respondent No.2 in Case No. 95/2013, dated 25.06.2015 by way of amendment in the writ petition. 4. The petitioner is a consumer of respondent No.3-Company. Respondent No.2 is a Regulatory Commission established under the Electricity Act, 2003. It has power to fix tariff and is expected to be a watchdog of interest of the consumers and function transparently. 5. According to the petitioner, on 16.08.2012, respondent No.2 settled the tariff w.e.f. 1st August, 2012 in case No.19/2012. As per provisions of Electricity Act, respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging two orders both of the date 23rd February, 2016 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nandurbar in Civil Appeal No.17/2011. The aforesaid appeal was filed by the present appellant challenging the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar in Special Civil Suit No.13/2007. The aforesaid civil suit was filed by the present respondent, seeking partition and possession. Relief of permanent injunction was also sought. The learned Trial Court decreed the said suit partly and held the plaintiff and defendant therein entitled for half share each in the suit land and the suit house. 3. The civil suit filed by present respondent was resisted by the present appellant on several grounds. It was the contention of the appellant that the partition was already effected in respect of the suit properties in the year 1962. It...
Tag this Judgment!