Mumbai Court November 1990 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ansuya Paints P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1990
Reported in: (1991)(33)ECC306
1. This is appeal directed against the order-in-appeal bearing No.SKM-1849/89-B.H dated 12-9-1989 setting aside the order of the Supdt.Central Excise, Divn. IX denying the modvat benefit in respect of metal containers used for packing paints and varnishes. The appeal has been brought by the Col-fector of Central Excise, Bombay-II seeking for setting aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and restoring the order of the Supdt.2. Shri Mondal, the Id. SDR stated that the order of the Collector (Appeals) is based on the decision of the same Collector taken in similar cases earlier vide order No. SKM-851/89-BII dated 14-4-1989. In this detailed order the Collector (Appeals) has held that notwithstanding the fact that the appellants therein were availing of exemption under Not. 219/77 dated 15-7-1977, the appellants are entitled to modvat credit for packing materials. He took us through the relevant exemption Notification and also the provisions of explanation (b)(ii) to Rule 57A and con...
Union Bank of India Vs. Byram Pestonji Gariwala and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom185; 1991(1)BomCR575; (1991)93BOMLR944; 1991(1)MhLj104
This Chamber Summons involves certain interesting and important questions of law. The questions involved in this proceeding for consideration of the Court are as under:(1) Whether the consent decree is a nullity in case the consent terms are not signed by theparties to the suit in person even though the same are signed by their advocates or counsel? (2) Whether the Chamber Summons is barred by constructive res judicata by reason of omission on the part of the defendant No. 1 to take the plea of alleged nullity in response to the show cause notice issued by the Court under O. XXI, R. 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and by reason of the said notice having been made absolute by the Court allowing the decree holder to execute the decree prior to taking out of this Chamber Summons? (3) Whether the filing of an appeal against the impugned consent decree as contemplated under Order XLIII, Rule 1 A(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is the only remedy available to defendant No. ...
Asaram BhavandIn Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR397; (1991)93BOMLR847; 1991CriLJ1252; 1991(1)MhLj362
1. The appellant in this case was the original accused No. 4 in Criminal Case No. 23 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule. The appellant along with the other accused was charged with having committed offences punishable under section 3 read with S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The accused were also charged with certain other offences which are not very material for the purposes of the decision of this appeal.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of all the offences with which they stood charged but as far as original accused No. 4 i.e. the present appellant is concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted him for having committed an offence punishable under section 3 read with S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The accused was sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, R.I. for three months. It is against this order of conviction and ...
Hanuman Son of Mahadeo Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR46; (1990)92BOMLR646; 1991(1)MhLj574
M.M. Qazi, J.1. The present application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 26-9-1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, converting the revision into an appeal. Applicant Hanuman was prosecuted for an offence under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Washim. On his admission, he was convicted and let off under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, reads as under :'3. Power of Court to release offenders after admonition.---When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code or any other law and no previous conviction is proved against him and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›