Mumbai Court January 1996 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.
Amerhsip Management (P) Ltd. and 9 ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: 1996(86)ELT15(Bom)
M.B. Shah, C.J. 1. In this group of Writ Petitions, the Petitioner-Companies are, inter alia, engaged in exploration/exploitation of offshore oil, gas and other related activities with the use of oil rigs on behalf of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC). In some cases, oil rigs are owned by the Petitioner-Company and in some other cases oil rigs are brought on charter basis. In cases where oil rigs are brought on charter basis, the said oil rigs are having foreign flags flying. 2. The contention in these Petitions is that on the equipments or spare parts of oil rigs which are imported by the ship at Bombay for transhipment at the place of the oil rigs, the Petitioners are not required to pay Customs duty on two counts, namely, (1) that the goods are imported at the Bombay Port only for transhipment; and (2) that the equipment are 'stores' within the meaning of Section 2(38) of the Customs Act and under Section 86(2) of the said Act, without payment of Customs duty it can be ...
Prakash Murlidhar Dalal Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR269; [1996(73)FLR1102]; 1996(1)MhLj654
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. Reversal of the order dated 6.7.1988 passed by the Labour Court, Amravati in Complaint (ULP) No. 7/85 at the hands of the Industrial Court, Amravati on 23-1-1989 in Revision (ULP) No. 76/88 has given rise to the present writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner Prakash Murlidhar Dalal (for short, the 'complainant-workman') was initially appointed by the order dated January 2, 1978 issued by the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited, Sales Office, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay-23 (for short, the 'employer-company') on probation for a period of one year as Watchman at Amravati Regional Sales Office on a basic salary of Rs. 135/- in the pay-scale of Rs. 75-5-150 plus dearness allowance payable in accordance with the rules of the employer-company. According to the terms of appointment, the service of the complainant-workman was governed by the employer-company's rules and regulations in fo...
Umesh Bapusaheb Chaugule Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR287; (1996)98BOMLR442
A.P. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. Malvankar, learned A.G.P., waives service for the respondents. By consent, petition is placed on board for final hearing.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Displaced Persons Act, 1976 read with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which have culminated in an award dated December 14, 1987 under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act.3. Mr. Mengane, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition, raised only one contention. Mr. Mengane urged that there is a violation of section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. According to learned Counsel, the award has been passed after two years from the publication of declaration under section 6 and as such, it is a nullity.4. Before dealing with the contention of the learned Counsel, few relevant facts are required to be stated.Petitioners' land admeasuring 1 hectare and 62 acres fro...
Kanta International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT487Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the above appeals involve consideration of the same issues and they were heard together. They are disposed of by this common order.2. The details of orders in original challenged in these appeals are as below:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. Order in Original Impugned Penalty Imposed--------------------------------------------------------------------------------C.1233/87 34/IX/2/85 Inv dated 3-9-1987 Rs. 11 lakhs ----------------C-1325/87 S-10-76/86 LSIIB dated 3-9-1987 Rs. 3,10,000/- Rs. 50,000/-C-1327/87 S-10-78/86 LSIIB dated 3-9-1987 Rs. 4,35,000/- Rs. 1 1akh In all the above appeals, Polyester fabrics imported against D.E.E.C.licences were ordered absolute confiscation and the above penalties were imposed on the firm and the kartha of the firm Shri Motilal Gupta.3. Consequent on investigation, carried out by officers of DRI, on the basis of intelligence gathered by them indicating that the above firms obtained DEEC ...
Shri Sadguru R. Kolmule Vs. Dy. Collector of North Goa Division
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR711; (1996)98BOMLR965
T.K. Chandrashekara Das, J.1. This Land Acquisition Appeal is filed by the Claimant. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of the land in question, was published in the Government Gazette dated 9.9.82 for acquiring an extent of land measuring 32,225 sq. metres at Bordem village, Bicholim Taluka for the purpose of setting up I.T.I. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.10.50 per sq.metre as per his Award dated 30.6.1983. On a Reference sought by the appellant, the Reference Court on classification of the land, taking into account gradient of the land has divided the land measuring 20,000 sq.metres as flat land and the remaining extent is sloppy land. Based on the material available, the Land Reference Court enhanced the compensation of flat land to Rs.24.75 per sq. metre and of sloppy land to Rs.14.75 per sq. metre. Being not satisfied by the award of the Court below, the present appeal has been filed by the claimant.2....
Smt. Basantibai (Since Deceased by Her L.R.) Vs. Narayan Kisan Khadasa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR267
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, on 27-7-1988, upsetting the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Jamod dated 28-1-1987, is challenged.2. One Basantibai, original petitioner, now deceased and represented by the present petitioner (for short 'the landlady') admittedly owned field Survey No. 6 admeasuring 13 acres 13 gunthas of land at village Pimpri Adgaon, Tahsil Sangrampur. One Smt. Manjulabai was the tenant in the said land on behalf of the landlady and for the years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84, the tenant did not pay any lease amount and, therefore, the landlady sent a notice to Manjulabai, but the said notice was returned with endorsement that Smt. Manjulabai was dead. One Narayan Kisan Khadsane, the original respondent (since deceased and now represented by respondent Nos. 1-A, 1-B & 1-C) claiming his rights as tenant on the basis of the will execut...
Swami Attah Alias Rapheal Alfandary Vs. Mrs. Thrity Poonawalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom257; 1996(2)BomCR691; (1996)98BOMLR321; 1996(1)MhLj603
1. This revision application takes exception to the order passed by the Competent Authority, Pune, under Section 13A2 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1847 (for short, 'the Act') directing the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the licensed premises to the respondent.2. The respondent is the owner of a bungalow situated at 1-B, Dr.Koyaji Road, Pune. Under, an agreement of leave and licence dated March 2, 1993, the respondent inducted the petitioner as licensee in respect of the first floor of the said bungalow for a period of two years. After the expiry of the licence period, the respondent filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner before the Competent Authority alleging that the petitioner is staying in the suit premises as a licensee and since the period of licence is expired, he is liable to be evicted.In contesting the petition, the petitioner's contention was that he is not a licensee, but he is a tenant in possession and he, there...
Wipro Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT610Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the aforesaid six Appeals involve consideration of the same issue and hence, with the consent of both the sides, are disposed of by this common order.2. The appeals are against the orders-in-appeals noted against each as per details below :------------------------------------------------------------------------------APPEAL NO. ORDER IN APPEAL NO. BY COLLR. (A)------------------------------------------------------------------------------E/634/625/94 (Two Appeals) Order in Appeal No. A-249/94, dated 19-8- 1994 passed by Collector (A) Pune.E/895/95 Order in Appeal No. A-310/95, dated 25-7- 1995 passed by Collr. (A) Pune.E/430/95 Order in Appeal No. A-83/95, dated 28-2- 1995 passed by Collr. (A) Pune.E/350/95 291 /94 (90-Raj) CE/Collr. (A) dated 16-4-1994 passed by Collr. (A) Ahmedabad.E/358/95 109-110/92 (32-Raj) AHD/CE 1 Collr. (A) Ahd. passed by Collr. (A) Ahmedabad.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Vanaspati (in short referred to as V.P.). They manufacture V.P...
Commr. of Central Excise Vs. Videocon Vcr Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT436Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. A/377/95, dated 25-8-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Pune.2. Though this day, the appeal was listed for hearing for admission, Shri Gurdeep Singh, the ld. JDR pleads that this has got a recurring implication and also involves a point of law. He was prepared to argue the appeal itself. Hence admitting this appeal, I heard his arguments.3. The issue relates to the eligibility for Modvat Credit in respect of dry battery cells fitted as components for remote controls, which are manufactured by the Respondents and supplied alongwith the TV sets. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of such dry battery cells. Revenue is aggrieved by this order.4. Shri Gurdeep Singh, the ld. JDR pleads that remote control itself is an accessory to TV set and even without remote control TV can function.Even otherwise, remote control can be marketed witho...
Goa Plast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Chico Ursula D'souza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2344
1.The appellant, Goa Plast Pvt. Ltd., a registered company, challenges the findings recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji, in Pvt. N.C. Case No. 149/93/B, whereby the respondent/original accused Shri Chico Ursula D'Souza came to be acquitted by the order dated August 25, 1995. 2. In this appeal against acquittal, it is vehemently argued by Mr. Usgaokar, learned Counsel for the appellant, that the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the learned trial Judge has neither considered the facts nor the law in true and correct perspective. Thereby, the finding of acquittal as recorded by the trial Court is ipso facto erroneous and deserves to be set aside. Further it is submitted that the respondent/original accused be convicted according to law. Alternatively, it is claimed that the case be remanded to the trial Court for fresh trial. 3. The facts leading to the institution of the criminal case as transpired in the cross-examination of P.W. 1, Eric Cordeiro, are as foll...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »