Mumbai Court July 1995 Judgments
Kothari and Sons Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC428Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No.S/8-12/89ADMN, dated 20-10-1994, of the Collector of Customs, Bombay, ordering, vide Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs. 25,000/- of the appellants.2. On receipt of report from the Air Cargo Complex at Sahar Air Port at Bombay, proceedings were initiated vide Regulation 23 of the said Regulations, against the appellants, holders of CHA Licence No. 11/671, on the ground that the said licencees attended clearance of Baggage of a passenger without the passenger's willingness or proper authority from him, and though they had attended the Baggage forms but had failed to maintain proper records and accounts of about 104 baggage forms, and had also failed to exercise the necessary supervision to ensure proper conduct of their employee, Mr. Gul Gurbax Malkani, and had thus, contravened the provisions of Regulations 14(a), 14(k) and 20(7) of the said Regulati...
Tag this Judgment!Vithal S/O Baliram Dhamne and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR151; (1995)97BOMLR429
S.S. Dani, J.1. These three appellants - accused challenge the order dated 13-3-1990 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1990 holding them guilty of offences under section 306 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentencing appellant - accused No. 1 - Vithal - to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month and the appellants accused Nos. 2 and 3 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 50/- each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 15 days; and, under section 498-A read with section 34 I.P.C. sentencing the appellant - accused No. 1 Vithal to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and the appellants accused Nos. 2 and 3 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months each and a fine of Rs. 25/- each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 10 days each.2. The facts leading to the arr...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukar S/O Ganpatrao Suryawanshi Vs. Laxmanrao S/O Ganpatrao Suryawa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR432
L. Manoharan, J.1. In this C.R.A. the applicant has filed C.A. No. 518/95 for impleading the legal representatives of deceased 3rd and 4th respondent. Respondent No. 3 died on 5-5-1994 and respondent No. 4 died on 29-12-1994. He has yet filed two other applications. C.A. No. 520 of 1995 is for setting aside the abatement and C.A. No. 519 of 1995 is for condoning the delay in setting aside the abatement. These two applications are filed under the impression that Order 22, Code of Civil Procedure, is applicable in a proceeding under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that these two applications were filed on mistaken impression that Order 22 is applicable. Now the stand taken by the learned Counsel is that it is not Article 120 of Limitation Act which is applicable for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased party in a proceeding under section 115 C.P.C. but it is only the residuary article, Article 137, that is applicabl...
Tag this Judgment!Mewati and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT109Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the appeals are directed against the common Order-in-Appeal No.4739/87BCH of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, confirming two orders-in-original Nos. S/10-375/86A, dated 28-10-1986 and S/10-332/86A, dated 21-8-1986 of the Dy. Collector of Customs, Bombay, confiscating Neutral Malt Spirit imported by the appellants but granting option to them to pay fine in lieu of confiscation.2. The appellants imported two consignments of the aforementioned material and claimed clearance against REP licence No. P/L 3099077, dated 5-8-1985, held by them as the transferees. The said licence was issued against Product Group B-16.1 in Appx. 17 of the Policy Book AM 1985-88. The clearance was objected to on the ground that the Licence was in relation to product group "synthetic organic dyes including organic pigments" and the goods permitted import were dye intermediates and chemicals appearing in Appx. 3 and used in manufacture of products exported, and as per para 8 of the general cond...
Tag this Judgment!Farmson Pharmaceutical Gujarat Vs. C.C. (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: (1997)LC780Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the 3 appeals involve in consideration of common issue though covered by 3 different orders and hence proposed to be disposed of by this common order. The aforesaid appeals are directed against the following orders:-C/56/90-BOM - Order in original No. 190/Addl. Collr. 89 (F. No. VIII/10-165/Addl. Collr. 89 dated 30-11-1989.C/57/90-BOM - Order in original No. 192/Addl. Collr. 89 (F. No. VIII/10-164/Addl. Collr. 88) dated 30-11-1989.C/82/90-BOM - Order in original No. 164/Addl. Collr. 89 (F. No. VIII/10-161/Addl. Collr. 89) dated 17-11-1989.2. Shri J.C. Patel, the ld. advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants in appeal No. C/56 & C/57/90 during the hearing. In respect of the appeal filed by M/s. Atul Product Ltd. they have requested for decision on their appeal on merits without their presence.3. The issue relates to the question whether acetic anhydride, which was specified under Notification No. 318A/86, dated 14-5-1986 would attract the provision of Chapter IVB of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Devidas S/O Venkatrao Pawar Vs. Shri Gopinath Mundhe and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom1; 1996(1)BomCR653; 1995(2)MhLj711
ORDERMane, J. 1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is the citizen of India and ordinarily resides at Aurangabad. He is Professor and also a social worker. He takes keen interest in social work. He has filed this petition, as, according to him, without any political object but with a view to maintain dignity of the Constitution of India. Respondent No. 1 is the elected member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the Renapur Constituency in Marathwadaregion. He is a member of the Bhartiya Janata Party, He was sworn in as Deputy Chief Minister on 14-3-1995. The oath has been administered by the respondent No. 2, Governor of Maharashtra. 2. In this petition the petitioner seeks writ of quo warranto for disqualifying the respondent No. 1 to hold the office of the Deputy Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra on the ground that the oath administered to him as Deputy Chief Minister was not the oath in accordance with...
Tag this Judgment!Pratapsingh S/O Mohansing Rathod and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ790
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The conviction and sentence of the accused/appellants by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, awarded on 5-4-1989 in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 1988, whereby the accused/appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, is questioned in this appeal. 2. Abridged the prosecution version first. 3. On 27-5-1988 is the night at about 10.00 p.m. the accused/appellants came to the house of P.W. 1 Sonabai armed with iron bars and asked about Manohar - the son of P.W. 1 Sonabai, Manohar was taking meals inside and accordingly P.W. 1 Sonabai told them that he was taking the meals inside. All the accused persons then entered her house and dragged Manohar out of the house. The accused persons dragged Manohar to the near nallah. P.W. 1 Sonabai ran towards the accused/appellants and tried to separate Manohar from the accused persons. At that time, accu...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhaurao S/O Doma Udan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: (1995)97BOMLR414; 1996CriLJ673; 1996(1)MhLj214
B.U. Wahane, J.1. The State, by this appeal, has questioned the correctness and legality of the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Wardha, on 8th December, 1988, in Sessions Trial No. 53/87, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 325, 324 and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the grounds that the learned trial Judge has not marshalled the facts and circumstances of the case and not appreciated oral and documentary evidence placed on record in true and correct perspective and recorded the findings which are not only erroneous but perverse, resulting in miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused, while supporting the findings, has urged that the reasons as adopted and the findings recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Wardha, are just, proper and in accordance with the evidence on record. By inviting our attention to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in a case of Tota Singh v. State of Punjab, : 1987Cr...
Tag this Judgment!Indiana Ebgubeerung Works (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ720Bom
B. N. Srikrishna, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges an Award of the 5th Labour Court, Bombay, dated 31st August, 1994 made in Reference (IDA) No. 507 of 1986 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner is a Company which manufactures engineering goods in its factory at Bombay. The Second Respondent was employed as a Mechanical Draughtsman on probation by a letter of appointment dated 28th May, 1984. Clause 2 of the said letter stipulates that the Second Respondent would be on probation for a period of six months from the date of appointment i.e. 28th May, 1984. By Clause 3 it was stated that the services of the Second Respondent would be confirmed, if his performance and attendance was found satisfactory and by clause 4 the Petitioner reserved their right to terminate his services, at any time, without notice, if it was not satisfactory. On 27th November, 1984 the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Colfax Laboratories (India) Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR263
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 31st May, 1991 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division Panaji, Goa, copy whereof is Exhibit 'A' to the petition. By the said impugned order, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Panaji-Goa (Division), has rejected the price lists No. 101/90-91 and No. 102/90-91 on the grounds set out in the impugned order. The petitioners have also sought issue of a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the respondents to refund to the petitioners the excise duty collected from the petitioners on the footing of the impugned order in the sum of Rs. 12,81,727.08 p. together with interest. 2. The petitioners are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under chapter heading 3307 and 3304 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1895. The petitioners supply their products to wholesale dealers in vario...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »