Mumbai Court December 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.
Govardhan Shriram Khandelwal Vs. Shivnarayan Shriram Khandelwal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR739
P.S. Patankar, J.1. The two properties regarding which the dispute survives in this Appeals is CST No. 121, Bhawani Peth, Satara and 6 gold ornaments.2. The Appellant herein filed the suit for partition and separate possession. The suit came to be decreed and he was granted half share in all the properties which are mentioned at Exhs. A, B and C to the plaint, except house No. 289 and share certificates.3. Both the parties filed the Appeals. Appeal filed by the Appellant came to be dismissed. However, appeal filed by Respondent came to be partly allowed i.e. with respect to the shop premises i.e. CTS No. 121, Bhawani Peth, and 6 gold ornaments.4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant first submitted that the learned Judge ought to have granted half share in the property i.e. CTS No. 121, Bhawani Peth, Satara. For that purpose he relied upon partition deed dated 17.11.1957. It is first to be noted that said premises were taken on rent and father was running a general stores kn...
Boolani Engg. Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)(71)LC892Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dt. 19.5.1989 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The appellants imported the impugned goods P.C. Component for manufacture of machinery for extrusion of synthetic Fibre. Their claim for exemption under Notfn. No. 179/80-Cus. dt. 4.9.1980 as amended was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that they have not produced certificate from Director of Industries as required by the notification. Collector (Appeals) before whom certificate dt. 7.9.1988 was produced held that the requirement of notification is that valid certificate is to be produced in each case of importation and that exemption from duty cannot be granted on the strength of certificate which has been issued nearly three years after the importation. He, therefore, upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. Hence this appeal.3. Arguing for the Appellants Ld. Counsel submits that certificate dated July, 1985 which was in their possession had already been exhaust...
Cauvery Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1996
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT320Tri(Mum.)bai
3. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Additional Collector has held that the teletypewriter imported by the appellant and claimed to be an accessory of an automatic component insertion machine was not essential for functioning of the machine and therefore not a part of it. He has therefore decline to allow clearance of the goods under the provisions of Open General Licence (OGL) and ordered its confiscation with option to redeem.4. While the Departmental Representative relies upon this argument to support the order, I am unable to accept it. The relevant entry (Appendix IB Serial 12(13) which reads : "automatic component insertion/placement/mounting machine with accessories". The Additional Collector has held that since the operating manual indicates that the data can be fed either manually or through the teletypewriter into the machine, the teletypewriter is not a part. In that case it conforms to the definition of "accessory". An accessory as contained in para 6(14) of the rel...
Bombay Tyres International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1996
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT127Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants herein imported a consignment of synthetic rubber through Bombay Customs House in July 1985 for which they filed 3 Bills of Entry for the clearance. They declared the value of the goods therein for assessment purposes as US $ 1780 per Metric Tonne. The Asstt. Commissioner of Customs sought to increase the assessable value to US $ 1890 per M.T. on the basis of an import of similar goods by another importer from the same supplier at the higher price for a similar quantity. The appellants sought to explain the difference as possibly due to difference in terms of payment in the relevant contract saying that when payment by credit is allowed price charged is higher.They chose to have the case adjudicated without a formal show cause notice. The Asstt. Commissioner gave them a personal hearing and passed Order-in-Assessment on each Bill of Entry enhancing the assessable value dismissing the appellants' explanation as unsubstantiated. The appeals against the Asstt. Commissio...
Girishkumar Parmanand Shah Vs. Sudarshan @ Kalpana Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR571
A.P. Shah, J.1. These two criminal revision applications arise out of proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). Briefly stated, the facts are that Girishkumar, who is the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 596 of 1988 married the respondent Sudarshana alias Kalpana on 7th June, 1983 under the provision of the Special marriage Act, 1954. Soon after the marriage, disputes arose between the parties. In short, the version of Sudarshana is that after the marriage, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law started ill-treating her as she failed to bring cash and gold ornaments as demanded by the. The husband also was pressing her to bring money from her parents Sudarshana, she was not in a position to bring the cash or the gold ornaments or bring money for the purchase of a new flat. Therefore, she was ill-treated, particularly, by their mother-in-law and sister-in-law. She was even denied food. She was often beaten by her in-laws. On 30th March, 1984 she was bea...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sou. Kamlabai Vishwanath Bagad and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR597
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. This first appeal arises out of the land acquisition proceedings. The appellants in this case is the State of Maharashtra. The appellants have preferred this first appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 21st August, 1995 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Nashik, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 257 of 1990. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the trial Court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq. metre for the land acquired. The trial Court has also granted solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the total market value and additional compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the notification published under sub-section (1) of section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. 1st February 1982 till the date on which the possession was taken viz. 28th November, 1988. The Lower Court also granted interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the net amount of the compensation from the date of possession for the f...
Mohamed Ilyas Qureshi Vs. Satish Sahney, Commissioner of Police and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)555; (1997)99BOMLR206
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the father of detenu Mohamed Taufique, has impugned the detention order dated 2.5.1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 in pursuance of the powers vested in him by Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act 1980 (No. 65 of 1980) read with Government Order, Home Department (Special) No. N.S.A. 2395 1/SPL-3(B) dated 8.2.1995 detaining him under the said Act.2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu have been spelt out in the grounds of detention bearing the same date as the detention orders which were served on the datenu on 5.1.1996.A perusal of the grounds of detention, in brief, shows that the detenu was a member of the gang of Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and along with other members of the gang used deadly weapons in the commission of offences like extortion, robbery and used to put persons in fear of death/grievous hurt in order to commit extortion. Con...
Lloyd Triestino Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT50Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, imposing a penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant, a steamer agent, for the reason that the steamer line failed to satisfactorily account for two consignments manifested for landing in India.2. Advocate for the appellant says that in respect of Item 173, he does not dispute the short landing. He, however, contends that penalty equal to the duty payable has been imposed and that such a high penalty is not sustainable in the absence of any reason to show that the carrier did not act in a mala fide manner or contumaciously and in conscious disregard of the obligations. He cites the decision of the Delhi High Court in India Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 19 (Delhi). The fact in that case has to be distinguished here. In the case before the Court it would appear that an order was issued under the Defence of India Rules and hence a greater responsibi...
Tata Engineering and Locomotives Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)(69)LC309Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 491/89-BCH dated 6.3.1989 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The appellants imported a consignment of Adaptors, Facing Heads, Tie Roils and Micro Heads. They claimed assessment of these goods under Tariff Heading 8466.93 road with Govt. of India's Notification No.69/87-Cus. Customs Authorities, however, assessed these goods as tools under Tariff heading 8207.90. Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld the order of lower authority. Hence, this appeal.3. Arguing for the appellants the Ld. Advocate submits that what they imported are in fact only tool holders and not tools by themselves. He draws our attention to catalogue placed in the file which indicates that these are without the cutters which actually perform the function of a tool. Without such functional component it is merely a tool holder.4. The Ld. D.R. submits that catalogue does not specifically indicate that these are only tool holders and, in fact, it categor...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Padmanabh Silk Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT143Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The following question of law said to arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal and reference to High Court is being sought by this application : "Whether the Man Made Fabrics which are excisable goods and on which Additional Duty of Excise is payable in terms of Section 3(2) of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, shall also attract penal provisions of confiscation and penalty as is the case with all other excisable goods finding mention in the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985".2. We have heard Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. DR for the applicant Commissioner and Shri Willingdon Christian, the ld. Counsel for the respondents.3. We find that the same issue had come up before the Tribunal both in New Delhi and in Mumbai. The Tribunal had held in all the cases that no point of law requiring reference to the High Court is justified, when the same issue already stands settled by the Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills P. ...