Mumbai Court October 1995 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.
Kausabai Keshav Dushinge Vs. Revubai Daji Jare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR326; (1996)98BOMLR446
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Heard parties.2. This Civil Revision Application raises short question whether an ex parte decree can be challenged by two simultaneous proceedings; one under Order 9, Rule 13 by way of application to the same Court and another by way of Appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. When an ex parte decree is passed against the defendant, he has remedies more than one available though the scope of inquiry would be different in different remedies. An ex parte decree may be set aside in an application under Order 9, Rule 13 wherein the applicant - defendant will have to show that there was sufficient cause for his failure to appear when the suit was called for hearing in the Court and in an appeal under section 96 he would be able to challenge the decree on merits. There is nothing in the Civil Procedure Code to bar simultaneous resort to both of them. On the contrary, it appears that from the explanation inserted vide section 59 of the Code of Civil ...
Mrs. Sunita Rajendra Nikalje Vs. Rajendra Eknath Nikalje
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom85; 1996(2)BomCR422; (1995)97BOMLR55; 1996(1)MhLJ572
ORDERP.S. Patankar, J.1.The marriage between Appellant-wife and Respondent-husband came to be solemnized according to Budhist Rites on 17-1-1988. The couple was blessed with a daughter by name Sampada born on 15-12-1988. The delivery took place at the place of Appellant's parents which is situated nearby the matrimonial house. Thereafter the Appellant resumed co-habitation. However, on 24-2-1989 the Respondent left Appellant and the daughter at Appellant's parents house and was not allowed to return. The Appellant filed Petition No. PE-1964/89 for her maintenance and for maintenance of the daughter under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Respondent filed Petition No. PE/969/89 for restitution of conjugal rights. The Application filed by the Appellant for maintenance and the petitionfiled by the Respondent came to be heard together. The learned Judge of the Family Court granted maintenance for the daughter at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month from 16-4-1989 and refused for the P...
Rubber Inds. (India) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT116Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-appeal No. ADN/88/B-1/92 (F.No. V-2 (40) 570/B-I/90), dated 26-1-1991.2. The appellants claimed 3 refund claims for a sum of Rs. 3771.59 under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules. There is no dispute that the goods which were cleared on payment of duty, were rejected by the customer and hence, they were returned back to the appellants. When they were received back, the appellants filed D-3 declarations, which were verified by the excise authorities. They have also cleared the same goods on payment of duty again. Thereafter, they filed refund claim under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules. However, the Asstt.Collector held that the refund is not permissible in respect of the rejected goods under Rule 173L and it is only permissible, if the goods are subject to process as specified in the Rule 173L. Since the goods were cleared as such, they were not entitled to refund. Hence it is rejected. On appeal before the Collector (Appeals) the aforesai...
Cce Vs. Guest Keen Williams Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)(63)LC330Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the order in appeal No. KVV-660/90 B. III dated 4.12.1990 allowing the appeal of the respondents. The appeal has been moved by the Collector contending that refund is not admissible to the respondents. The following is the undisputed factual position.The respondents cleared certain excisable goods on payment of duty.They were returned back by the Customers. There is no dispute that these returned goods were produced for verification by the excise authorities by filing D-3 declaration. Subsequently, these returned goods were cleared on payment of duty again. Thereafter, they filed refund claim under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, which was rejected on the ground that Rule 173L does not stand attracted in such circumstances. No process or remaking is involved in this case. In that view, the Asstt. Collector rejected the refund claim. On appeal before the Collector (Appeals) he held that even if Rule 173L may not be applicable in this case, there is n...
Collector of C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Meta Dust (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Reference application has been moved by the Collector in this respect of this Bench order No. 993/994/94/WRB, dated 30-5-1994. The issue which was considered in the appeal before the Tribunal was, whether 'crucible' which was used for melting zinc for manufacture of zinc dust would be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules and whether the demand issued for reversal of credit would be hit by time bar. This Bench construed 'crucibles', to be an equipment for melting and since it is excluded from the purview of modvat credit under Rule 57A, it was held by the Tribunal that it is not eligible for modvat credit. All the same, taking note of the declaration made and also taking note of the fact that the demand has been issued beyond a period of six months, it was held that the demand is hit by time bar. The Collector is aggrieved by the order only with regard to the setting aside of the demand as hit by time bar. The ground urged in the reference applic...
Bibhishan Yadav Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1108
1. Admit. 2. Mr. T. E. Mane, Counsel for the Appellant urges that he is pressing this Appeal only on the quantum of sentence and consequently the same may be disposed of finally by me today. Mrs. S. J. Pingulkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra has no obejction. Accordingly, I am disposing of this Appeal forthwith. 3. The Appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28th September, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1995 convicting and sentencing him to undergo 5 years R.I. under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code has preferred the present Appeal. 4. There are two deceased in the instant case, viz., Chhabubai, the wife of the Appellant and her paramour Pintya alias Shrikant, the younger brother of PW-9 Mahadev. They are alleged to have been done to death at about 7.00 a.m. on 5-8-1994 inside the Grocery Shop of the deceased Pintya alias Shrikant. 5. The prosecution case is that on the afore...
Topa S/O Dhenu Rathod Vs. Maheshkumar S/O Shankarlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR703
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Washim, on 14-9-1993, rejecting the application filed by the present applicant in the suit for framing of additional issues, is questioned in the present revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the C.P.C.').2. Non-applicant Maheshkumar Shankarlal Agrawal (for short 'the plaintiff') filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against the applicant Topa Dhenu Rathod (for short 'defendant'). The said suit was registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 99 of 1987. According to the averments made in the plaint, the defendant agreed to sell the land comprising of Survey Nos. 29/3 and 29/6 situated at Mouza Shirputi, taluq Washim, for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/-. The plaintiff paid Rs. 3,500/- at the time of agreement of sale and the balance amount of consideration was required to be paid on 31-3-1984. According to the terms of agreement, possession of the lands...
Sunil Sadashiv Bhosale Vs. Gyanchand Verma, Commissioner of Police, Pu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1100
V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of detention dated 17-11-1994 (Annexure 'A') passed under the National Security Act, 1980. The impugned detention order came to be passed against the detenu under the following reasons :- That it was reported that the detenu was involved in anti-social activities endangered to the security of the public. The grounds for detention enumerated in the order at Annexure 'C' considered by the Detaining Authority, respondent No. 1 and satisfied with the report regarding the anti-social activities of the detenu. The proposal for taking action against the detenu under the National Security Act was submitted to the respondent No. 1 on 10-9-94 and the Detaining Authority passed the impugned detention order at Annexure 'A' on 17-11-94. It reveals from the record that the detention order could be served only on 30th November, 1995 and the detenu was immediately detained...
Krishna Bapu Patil and ors. Vs. Jagadish Bapuso Ghorpade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR417
A.P. Shah, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the orders passed by the authorities rejecting the petitioners' application under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'Act').2. Briefly stated the facts which have given rise to this petition are :-We are concerned with three pieces of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 169/2, 193 and 170/1 situated at Village Top, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur. There is no dispute that the petitioners were the tenants in respect of the said lands which belonged to the respondents. The respondents obtained an Exemption Certificate under section 88-C of the Act and on the strength of the said Certificate they terminated the tenancy of the petitioners and applied for possession under section 33-B on the ground that they require the lands for their personal cultivation. It is not necessary to deal with the proceedings under section 33-B in detail but ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1995
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT299Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal from the Commissioner against the Order-in-Original No. SD/INT/AIU/266/91 (S/14-4-70/91), dated 18-7-1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, Air Port, filed on the basis of a direction issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. In the impugned order he held, two Sony Betacam SP Recorder valued at Rs. 11,13,125/- as liable to confiscation under Section lll(o) of the Customs Act but allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 1.00 lac on condition of re-export of the said cine equipments by the respondent or by his authorised representative within 15 days of receipt of the impugned order. 2.1 On 21-12-1990, the respondent holding an Indian Passport arrived from London with the two Betacam Recorder referred to above. He declared these two items and claimed clearance in terms of Tourist Baggage Rules, 1978 on giving an undertaking to the Assistant Collector of Customs that these two equipments would be re-exported within six months. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »