Mumbai Court October 1994 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.
Jayu Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1994
Reported in: (1994)(55)LC37Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Short question involved in the present appeal is as to whether "the preparations based on the Ultra Marine Blue in the instant case amounts to 'manufacture' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944? If so, whether the appellants were entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 114/73-CE dated 13.4.1973 as amended ?" 2. The facts giving rise to the above controversy in brief are that the appellants after obtaining the L-4 licence as directed by the Range Superintendent filed their Classification List No. 224/87 classifying their product "preparations based on Ultra Marine Blue" under sub-heading No. 3206.90 and claiming exemption under Notification No.175/86-CE and further showing in para III of the classification list liquid blue as not excisable. Subsequently they also claimed the benefit under exemption Notification No. 114/73 as amended. However, on scrutiny of the classification list the Department was of the opinion that the appel...
Kunjilal Vs. Smt. Sushila and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1972; II(1995)DMC520
ORDER1. This petition has been filed Kunjilal Hanumanlal Jaiswal challenging the order dated 16-10-1993 passed by the Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No. 352 of 90 and the order dated 2-7-1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 3rd Court, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 41 of 1989 awarding maintenance @ Rs. 250/- to each of the respondents viz. Smt. Sushila alias Iqbal Banoo and Kundanlal Jaiswal, from the date of application. 2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that, the non-applicants 1 and 2 viz. Sushila alias Iqbal Banoo and Kundanlal Jaiswal (hereinafter referred to as the 'wife' and 'sons' respectively) filed an application under S. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short. 'Cr.P.C.') against the petitioner Kunjilal Hanumanlal Jaiswal (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband') for grant of maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month to each of them from the date of application i.e. 31-3-1989 bef...
Ramesh S/O. Ramarao Wase Vs. the Commissioner, Revenue Division
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1994
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ55Bom
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. This is a petition challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court which has rejected the complaint in limine, by holding that the same is filed by a person who is a Class-II Gazetted Officer and a Sectional Engineer and cannot be termed as 'workman' and cannot excite the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2A. The petitioner, it seems had filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, complaining against the order setting up a departmental enquiry against him for some acts of misconduct. This departmental enquiry seems to have been instituted by an order dated August 27, 1993. It seems that a charge-sheet and a statement of allegations had also been supplied to the petitioner. It is worth while to note that charges 1,2 ...
Pandurang N. Vanarase Since Deceased by His Heirs Vs. Janardhan Naraya ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR424; (1995)97BOMLR166
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2nd November, 1977 in Special Civil Suit No. 52 of 1972 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Satara. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties.2. The appellant was the third defendant in the Court below. The first respondent to this appeal was the original plaintiff. For the purpose of convenience I refer to the parties as per their rank and title in the Court below.The plaintiff Janardhan filed a suit against the appellant and other defendants, respondents to this appeal, for a partition and separate possession of his 1/6th share in the joint family properties. His case is that he and defendants 1 to 4 and 9 are brothers. The suit properties are joint family properties. The father of the parties died in 1934 and the mother in 1947. Each brother is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit properties. The father was running a cloth shop.Subsequently, after the father's de...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Kapildevsingh Guptarsingh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR361
M.S.Mane, J.1. The State has filed this application seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent against whom offence vide C.R. No. 83 of 1994 has been registered under section 302 of I.P.C.2. Few relevant facts:The respondent has been arrested in the offence registered vide C.R. No. 83 of 1994 under the provisions of sections 302, 307, 323 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and under sections 3, 25 and 27 of Arms Act alongwith the other accused by the Bhandup Police Station in Greater Bombay. The alleged incident took place on 12th March, 1994 and the version of the prosecution reads that the present respondent herein used 12 bore gun and from close range open fired in which two persons died. It appears that the complaint has been lodged immediately and the respondent was also apprehended on the following day i.e. on 13th March, 1994. It is noticed that on the very next day the respondent moved an application for bail before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 27th Court, M...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›