Mumbai Court November 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. KevIn Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1995
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT233Tri(Mum.)bai
1. First two appeals have been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 114 & 115/91 (48 & 49 BED) CE/Ahd/Collr(A) dated 18-2-1991, whereas Appeal E/67/91Bom is against Order-in-Appeal No.474/90/61-BRD/CEX/AHD/Collr(A) dated 25-10-1990 both passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad. As the issue involved in all the three appeals is same, all the appeals are taken up for hearing together.2. The Respondents received consignments of coils initially supplied by SAIL under invoice issued in favour of one M/s. Kanoi Steel Corporation, who sold part thereof in all the three cases, to the present Respondents by making endorsement on the gate passes to the effect that they had no objection to M/s. Kevin Enterprises taking credit on the said material. The coils were received in original packing bearing due identification marks. Respondents availed of MODVAT credit thereon which was objected to and therefore the demands were raised which were confirmed by the Adjudicating A...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Laxman Kishan Shirashat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1282
ORDER1. I have heard Ms. S. J. Pingulkar, A.P.P., for the Applicant the State of Maharashtra and Mr. K. V. Reddy, for the Respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent vide order dated 20-5-1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur. 3. The Respondent along with some others has been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 453, 324 of the I.P.C. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19-2-1995 at about 7.30 p.m. the injured Dattatraya Devappa Kamble was sitting in his house along with his brothers Laxman Devappa Kamble and Kailash Bhinge and some others. At that time the Respondent, armed with sword along with some others armed with sharp edged weapons came inside the house. Assault is alleged to have been launched by the Respondent and others on Kailash Bhinge, Laxman Devappa Kamble, Bhaskar B...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Walchand Hiralal Shaha and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1102
ORDER1. I have heard Ms. S. J. Pingulkar, A.P.P., for the applicant-the State of Maharashtra and Mr. T. E. Mane, for the Respondents. 2. This is an application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents vide the order dated 20th May, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur. 3. The respondents have been charge-sheeted for the offence/punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 453, 324 of I.P.C., along with some other co-accused persons. 4. According to the prosecution, on 19-2-95 at about 7.30 p.m. the two respondents along with some others entered the house of Dattatraya Devappa Kamble in village Pandharpur within the limits of District Solapur. At that time Dattatraya's family members, including his brothers Laxman Devappa Kamble and Kailash Bhinge, were present inside the house assault is alleged to have been launched by the respondents with swords and by some others with sh...
Walchandnagar Inds. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT117Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Since both the appeals consideration of the common issue, they were argued together and they are proposed to be disposed of by this common order.2. Appeal No. 409/88 is directed against the order-in-appeal No.AMP-180/PN-85/88 (F. No. V-2 (84 CETA) 517/87), dated 1-9-1988, while Appeal No. 664/91 is against the order-in-appeal No. SDK-140.B.II/91 (F. No. V. 2 (73) 826/90), dated 4-7-1991.3. The facts are not discussed herein because both the appeals are issue based appeals. The issue involved is, whether X-ray films used for testing welded pumps, reactors and other parts of various machines and equipments would be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. Both the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various machineries like nuclear reactors, boilers, centrifugal etc. and as per the customers requirement, in the case of highly sophisticated machines, the welded parts are to be subjected to radiography test so as to detect any defects. For this ra...
D.N. Deshpande Vs. Tata Finance Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom120
ORDER1. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the Award dated 20th April 1994 filed in this Court on the ground that the Sole Arbitrator did not properly consider the merits of the claim of the Respondents and that the Arbitrator proceeded with the proceedings of the reference even after filing of the suit by the Petitioner in the Civil Court Ambajogai challenging the agreement under which the claim in arbitration proceedings was made by the Respondents against the Petitioner.2. An award in not vulnerable to any challenge thereto. The ambit and scope of challenge to an award under Section 30 of the Arbitrtion Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act') has now been laid down by the catena of decisions of the Supreme Court as also of this Court and other High Courts. Needless to say this when an arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties, an award is not open to the challenge on the ground that the arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed t...
D.N. Deshpandey Vs. Tata Finance Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR571
ORDERS.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the Award dated 20th April, 1994 filed in this court on the ground that the Sole Arbitrator did not properly consider the merits of the claim of the Respondents and that the Arbitrator proceeded with the proceedings of the reference even after filing of the suit by the Petitioner in the Civil Court at Ambajogai challenging the agreement under which the claim in arbitration proceedings was made by the Respondents against the Petitioner. 2. An award is not vulnerable to any challenge thereto. The ambit and scope of challenge to an award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act') has now been laid down by the catena of decisions of the Supreme Court as also of this court and other High Courts. Needless to say that when an arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties, an award is not open to the challenge on the ground that the arbitrator has reached a wron...
Dr. Satyasaheel Nandlal Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1463; 1996(2)MhLj633
1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner to quash the chargesheet filed by the police in Criminal case No. 276 of 1987 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 8, Pune. Heard both the sides. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows :- The petitioner is a registered medical practitioner at Pune. It appears on 7-8-1987 at about 12.30 p.m. one patient by name Ravindra Salunke came to hospital with some injuries. The patient was treated. The patient gave history of skidding of motor vehicle and sustained some injuries. The patient was admitted to the hospital. On the next day viz. 8-8-1987 the patient was discharged on his request. It transpired that the patient was admitted to Ruby Nursing Hall, Pune where he succumbed to the injuries and died on 8-8-1987. In the first instance, the police registered a case for accidental death and then they came to know that a vehicle had been involved in the accident. Then the police ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh N. Vaidya and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1113
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the State against the order of discharge dated 25th March, 1986 in Criminal Case No. 45/P/85 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay. Heard both the sides. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are as follows :- It appears on 23rd November, 1984 the C.B.I. officials had gone to trap a Rakshak of the R.P.F. in connection with the demand for a bribe by him. The trap was successful. The Rakshak Shukla was held by the C.B.I. officials in order to complete the post-trap formalities. At that time, all the respondents who are Inspector and Rakshaks of the Railway Protection Force rushed to the spot and released Shukla, and manhandled Inspector Mishra and other C.B.I. Officers even after they disclosed their identity and the purpose for which they had come. Inspector Mishra and some others sustained some injuries as a result of this manhandling. then the C.B.I. Officers were taken to the...
Meena Engineering and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR167; (1996)98BOMLR238
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. These suits raise the same question of law and can be decided by common judgment. For the purpose of convenience, the brief facts that are set out relate to Arbitration Suit No. 1503 of 1990. The relevant dates in other suits which are different have been separately mentioned.2. In each suit, the plaintiffs seek an order under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for Short, ' the Act') to file the Arbitration agreement in this Court as also an order of reference of plaintiffs' claim to arbitration in accordance therewith.3. Parties in these suits are common. The plaintiffs are Civil Engineering contractors and the Defendants are a statutory Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. In the month of April, 1988, the defendants had invited separate tenders for the work of desalting of open Nallas viz. 1) from Race Course to Love Grove pumping station and from E. Moses road upto Nehru Science Centre, 2) Joglekar...
Pir Jamal Dargah Trust Through the Manager Vs. Special Land Acquisitio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR554; (1996)98BOMLR245
A.D. Mane, J.1. On rejection of the petitioner's application for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground of delay, these two civil revision applications came to be filed by the claimant.2. The impugned order is annexed as Exhibit-B and it is dated 24th August, 1993 in the form of intimation to the petitioner that his applications stand rejected as time barred under section 18(2) (a) and (b) of the Land Acquisition Act (called as the 'Act').3. The question arises whether the impugned order can stand in absence of any material on record to hold that the applications were time barred.4. Sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act, inter-alia provides that :'The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: provided that every such application shall be made. (a) If the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award. Within six weeks from the date of Collector's award;(b) In ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »