Mumbai Court November 1993 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.
Balkisan Jainarayan Jaju (Deceased) through L.R's. Vs. Maniklal Ratanl ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1993
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR181
Bhimrao N. Naik, J.1. Writ Petitioner No. 4136 of 1981 is by the tenant and Writ Petition No. 287 of 1986 is by the landlord arising out of the same judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 429 of 1972, confirmed in Civil Appeal No. 204 of 1978. Both these petitions are being, disposed by me by a common judgment. The few facts which are relevant for the purpose of these petitions are that, petitioner in Petition No. 287 of 1986, who is the landlord filed suit for possession under the Rent Act on the ground of bona fide requirement as also on the ground of permanent construction erected by the tenant. The suit property consists of the northern portion admeasuring 39'x8' of the house bearing-No. 320, situated in Somwar Ward at Malegaon, District Nasik. It is the case of the landlord that the tenant constructed three new rooms as also one Mori, or bath room, without his written permission and thus carried out permanent constructions and in view of the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) a ...
Meena Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1993
Reported in: (1995)LC346Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though today only the stay applications were listed for hearing, the issue involved has already stood covered by the earlier decisions of this Bench. Hence both the appeals are taken up for final hearing, granting waiver of pre-deposit.2. The appellants have sent a telegram requesting for adjournment.However, considering the fact that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of this Bench referred to hereinafter, there is no need for hearing the appellants on the point and hence request for adjournment is not considered.3. Appeal E/694/93 is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. PCJ/ 128/BRD/93, dated 22-9-1993 of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay, upholding the Order-in-Original No. Demand/192/92, dated 18-11-1992, whereas appeal C/695/93-Bom is filed also against the same Order-in-Appeal No. PCJ/128/BRD/93 of 22-9-1993 of Collector (Appeals), Bombay, upholding the Order-in-original No. Demand/191/92, dated 18-11-1992 of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Anand Division.4....
Swastik Plastic Industries Vs. Collr. of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1993
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT582Tri(Mum.)bai
1. As a short issue is involved and the matter is required to be sent back to the Assistant Collector for further verification, granting waiver of pre-deposit, the entire appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 381/93 (96-Raj) CE/COLLR(A)/AHD, dated 25-8-1993 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad confirming the Order-in-Original No.BVR/2/93, dated 25-1-1993 of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bhavnagar, directing the appellants to reverse the MODVAT Credit to the extent of Rs. 9,066.23 and also imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant.3. The appellants opted for MODVAT Scheme and filed a declaration on 9-12-1991 under Rule 57G. Simultaneously they also filed an application under Rule 57H for availment of MODVAT Credit in relation to the inputs lying in stock on that particular day. Before the permission could be granted by the Assistant Collector, the appellants availed of the Credit in...
Popular Colour Lab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1993
Reported in: 1993LC202(Bombay); 1993(68)ELT544(Bom)
ORDER1. This is a batch of writ petitions wherein the petitioners have raised a plea of promissory estoppel. For the purposes of this judgments, we may refer to the averments contained in writ petition No. 1495 of 1986 and indicate as to how the issue of promissory estoppel has been raised in these writ petitions. 2. The petitioners are a private limited company registered under the Partnership Act and are inter alia dealing in photographic and other processes. There does not seem to be any dispute that the Customs duty for such goods imported into India is chargeable under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Prior to 28th February, 1986 the customs duty was charged as per the rates mentioned against the appropriate items mentioned in the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as `C. T. A. '). It is averred by the petitioners that Tariff Item No. 84 as it stood prior to 28th February 1986, death with the items under heading `Boilers', Machinery, Me...
Vinodkumar Bajranglal Choudhary Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR47; (1994)96BOMLR522
A.A. Halbe, J. 1. Whether the assessee accused prosecuted under sections 276(C) and 277 Income Tax Act can always claim quashing of the prosecution once his revisions under section 264 and Appeals under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act are allowed and original assessment is set aside or ordered to be redone?The Answer would be 'Not Always'.Having been aggrieved by the order on Ex. 43 - application denying the discharge but directing the framing of the charges under section 276(C) and 277 of the Income-Tax Act ('Act' for short), for concealing the income and making false verification in the Income-Tax return for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1988-89 and under section 420 Indian Penal Code for cheating the Income-Tax Authorities by submitting false returns passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola in Criminal Case No. 413 of 1990, the petitioner-assessed-accused has preferred this application for quashing the above impugned order and discharging the petitioner on the ground tha...
Rolex Ancillary Inds. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT832Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today only stay application was listed for hearing. However, with the consent of both the sides, by granting waiver of pre-deposit, the entire appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. GS/344/ B.I/93, dated 4-8-1993 confirming the order-in-original No.K.II/135/1992, dated 25-6-1992, directing the appellants to reverse the modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 19,088.46 and also imposing a penalty of Rs. 500/-.3. The only ground on which the modvat credit was reversed is that the appellant has not declared their input viz., articles of paper laminated sheets for industrial use, in their declaration vide Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules any time prior to 19-10-1991 and that the same declaration came to be acknowledged by the Department only on 31-10-1991 and as such the credit availed of was without filing a proper declaration and was not admissible.4. Heard Shri Naik, the ld. advocate on behalf of the appellants and Shri Mondal, the ld...
Super Coaters (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT716Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed against the order-in-original No. 59/92, dated March 1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Auran-gabad.2. For hearing the applicants' appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,972.52 towards duty and a penalty of Rs. 3,000/-.3. There is a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal and it is pleaded that the factory is closed and except the watchman there is none present. The watchman had received the order in original and handed over to the person concerned only when somebody visited the premises.Shri Jagesha, submits that immediately after the receipt of the order, the appeal is filed and there is no wanton negligent on their part. To show their bona fides, he offered to deposit the full duty amount.5. Considering the submissions made, in the absence of any negligence on the part of the applicants, the delay is condoned. In view of the offer made, the applicants are directed to deposit the full duty amount within a per...
Madhav Vinayak Rajwade Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR687
ORDERSmt. Sujata Manohar, J. 1. The petitioner is a retired civil servant. He joined Government service in 1942. He worked with the Government of Maharashtra till 1974. Thereafter, the petitioner worked with the United Nations from May, 1974 upto March 1980. He returned to India in April, 1980 and thereafter he is residing at Bombay at 5, Lalit, Wodehouse Road, Bombay-400039. The family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, his daughter, son-in-law and niece. No other person resides at the said premises. The petitioner has a telephone at the said premises. Originally, the number of the telephone was 241605. It is now changed to 2021615. According to the petitioner, apart from his four family members no other person uses the said telephone. 2. At all times material to this petition, the telephone had an S.T.D. facility. After the return of the petitioner to India, the telephone calls metered at the said telephone for the bi-monthly period for which the telephone bills are iss...
intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay Vs. KamruddIn A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR438; 1994CriLJ1069
ORDER1. This is an application made by Shri Brij Mohan Gupta, a Judge of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, for expunging certain observations made by me in my Judgment dated 2nd July 1993 in Criminal Revision Application No. 37 of 1993, arising out of N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 284 of 1992 (for short, Kamruddin's case). In the said case, one Naushand Ali was accused No. 1. He was intercepted at the Sahar Airport, Bombay, on the 24th September 1992 and 9 kgms of mandrax tablets were recovered from him. The statement of Naushad Ali was recorded under S. 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act on 24th/25th September 1992, as also on the 4th November 1992. He implicated Respondent No. 1 - accused No. 2 Kamruddin as the exporter of mandrax tablets to foreign countries. The statement of one bag repairer, who was employed to stitch special bags to accommodate the mandrex tablets viz. Mohd. Shehzabe was also recorded on the 24th September 1992 and he also implicated Kamruddin - Respondent No. 1...
Meghjibhai P. Bhanushabi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR103; 1994CriLJ2147
Pendse, J.1. This petition was filed by a friend of the detenu to challenge order dated February 17, 1992 passed by the Secretary (Preventive Detention) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with a view to prevent the detenu from transporting smuggled goods. The petition was heard by Division Bench and judgment dated September 4, 1992 various contentions raised on behalf of the detenu were turned down and the petition was dismissed. The Division Bench noticed that the decision of Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Smt. Shashikala Rane v. Union of India reported in 1987 Cri LJ 1787 required reconsideration, as the observations made by the Division Bench run contrary to the decision of another Division Bench in the case of Shahul Hamid Ismail Shahbendray Patel v. R. D. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »