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.
Sanjivraje Vijaysinha Naiknimbalkar and Others Vs. Rajan Dinkarrao Pha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom289; 1997(4)ALLMR219; 1997(4)BomCR28; (1997)3BOMLR750; 1997(1)MhLj803
ORDERM. B. Shah, C. J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 16th Oct. 1996, passed in Writ Petition No. 4961 of 1996 and other allied matters.2. Writ petitions were filed challenging the order dated 18th Sept. 1996, passed by the Collector, Satara, excluding more than 10400 members of the Karkhana as voters out of a total number of 10687 members in the election of the Board of Directors of Shriram Sahakari Karkhana Ltd.3. At the time of the hearing of these appeals, it is not disputed that the Society is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960; out of 10400 members who are excluded by the order passed by the Collector 7,000 are founder-members of the Society.4. For the becoming member of the Society, prior to the amendment of the bye-laws, a person was required to apply for share of the face value of Rs. 1,000.00 and was required to pay Rs. 250.00 along with the application. However, the in the annual general body meeti...
Suresh K. Mehta Vs. S.B. Chincholikar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR315
R.M. Lodha, J.1. In this Civil Revision Application filed under section 31-F of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, 'Rent Control Act'), the petitioner impugns two orders passed on 1-3-96 by the Competent Authority, Mumbai. By the first order dated 1-3-96, the Competent Authority refused petitioner leave to defend the proceedings in Civil Application No. 71/95 filed by respondent No. 2 herein under section 13-A(2) of the Rent Control Act and by the subsequent order of the even date, the Competent Authority ordered eviction of the petitioner from the disputed flat and also granted ancillary reliefs.2. Facts first. The respondent No. 2 herein Mrs. Brijseth (for short, 'landlady-licensor') instituted the proceedings under section 13-A(2) of the Rent Control Act against the petitioner herein (for short, licencee) before the Competent Authority, Mumbai. She, inter-alia averred that she was the owner of flat No. 35, garage No. 54 in Block A of Sterli...
Ramchand Gobindram Gurnani, Since Deceased Through His Heirs and Legal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR333
A.P. Shah, J.1. By the present petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is challenging the validity and legality of the order dated 28th February, 1989 passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Appeals & Revisions, Government of Maharashtra, cancelling the conveyance dated 20th May, 1985, issued in favour of the petitioner and remitting the case to the Collector of Thane for holding a fresh inquiry.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :The petitioner is a displaced person within the meaning of the term defined in the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 ('Act' for short). The petitioner and his family are the victims of partition. They had to flee the area now known as Pakistan and were faced with the problem of settling down. Many displaced persons were sent to this State for rehabilitation. There were number of transit camps near Kalyan which were used previously for prisoners of w...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Savala Sagu Kokare and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)618; 1997CriLJ786
Sahai, J.1. Aggrieved by a perverse judgment dated 14-12-1983, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case No. 75 of 1983, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under Section 376, IPC and 392 r/w 34, IPC, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, udder Section 378(1), Cr.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :- The prosecutrix Chandrabhaga, PW-2 was the daughter of Zimaji Kokare. She was residing in village Deur, Taluka Javali, along with her parents, her brothers Anand and Shankar, her sister Lilabai and other family members. Her three brothers Shamu alias Shamrao, Vithal and Laxman, were residing at Maldev. Her elder sister Venubai and her husband Arjun were residing in village Kas. About a month prior to the incident, she along with Shankar had gone to her brother's place in Maldev. They stayed there till a day prior to the incident (3-2-83). On 3-2-83, on receiving news from father-in-law of her brother Shamrao about her ...
Yeshwant Tukaram Raut Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR35; 1997(4)BomCR442
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. The petitioner is a resident of Virar and survey number 264/A/33 of village Virar is owned by the petitioner having 1/3rd share in the said land and 2/3rd belonging to the petitioner's deceased uncle Bhaskar Nana and after his death the sons of said Bhaskar Raut. Survey No. 264/A/1 of village Virar, Taluka Vasai, Dist. Thane admeasures about 25 gunthas and there is a well in the land. The said land belongs jointly to 15 persons including the petitioner. Survey No. 264/A/36 of village Virar admeasuring 11/2 gunthas belongs to Haribhau Govind Vartak and five others. Petitioner claims to be in possession of this land as a tenant. Ultimately tenancy proceedings were commenced and by an order dated 26-9-1985 passed by the Competent Authority the petitioner was declared to be tenant of the said land. All these lands are being acquired for a proposed State Road Transport Bus Stand. The petitioner submitted that he was served with a notice dated 9-11-1983 informing that Surve...
Ram Decorative and Indl. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1996
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT703Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants imported a consignment of stainless steel moulds and cleared them from Customs on payment of duty. Subsequent to their clearance some damage was noticed to these moulds. A survey carried out showed damage in the form of pitting spots marks and line the moulds.The surveyor tendered the opinion that this damage would have been resulted eutger (sic) due to the consignments being stored in a container with some corrosive material, or by its coming into contact with corrosive material during the storage in the docks. Acting on this report, appellant claimed abatement of duty under Section 22 of the Act. The Assistant Collector (whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) rejected this claim. Hence this appeal.2. The Advocate for the appellant contends that in view of the opinion of the surveyor damage would have taken place either during the transit of the goods, or after their landing and storage in the docks. He points out that, as a result of dispute with...
Noorjehan Sarver Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)614; 1997CriLJ794
Moorthy, J.1. By this petition the petitioner who is the wife of the detenue under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks to impugn the order of detention dated 24th January 1996 passed by the Commissioner of Police Brihan Mumbai against the detenue, Sarvar Afsar Khan. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, Respondent No. 2 herein in exercise of his powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) read with Government order, Home Department (Special) No. DDs. 1395/1/SPL-3(B) dated the 19th November, 1995, passed the detention order bearing No. D.O. No. 1/PCB/BL/Zone-X/1996 dated 24th January, 1996, detaining the detenue with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 3. At the outset it may be mentioned that for the purpose of considering and deciding the point that has been raised ...
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)(71)LC146Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against order of Collector of Customs (Appeals) No. 2752/BCH dt. 18.7.1988.2. The Appellants imported 4 nozzle printing heads and spares for the on line printing system. The Appellants have an Automatic bale marking device installed as an integral part of Cut-Bale area of the plant. The Bales are transported to the scale conveyor for weighing and final identification. Bale numbers and weight are automatically applied using a Mathews "Jet-A-Mark" Model 1104 Alpha Numerical Non-contact Marking System. This Jet-A-Mark/printing system is for line printing at conveyor speed. It was contended before us that this Jet-A-Mark is called Alphanumeric Non Contact Marking System since it is capable of marking both alphabets and numerals by spraying a jet of special type of ink on the bales through certain nozzles in the printing head without actually coming into contact with the bales. Assistant Collector in his order held that goods were classifiable under Chapter headi...
Harbans Singh Narula Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1996
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT282Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The first appellant was a partner, and the second Assistant Manager, of M/s. Delux Roadways. On information received, the Customs authorities seized from its office at Bombay 15 packages which were found to contain wrist watch movements and watches valued at Rs. 46 lakhs approximately. These goods have not been claimed, and have been ordered to be confiscated by the Collector. In his order, the Collector has also imposed penalties of Rs. 1 lakh respectively on the first and second appellant. These are against imposition of penalties.2. Collector has imposed penalty on the first appellant on the ground that the consignments did not have any markings the address of the consignor and consignee was incomplete and the first appellant antecedents were in fact he was once detained under COFEPOSA. The second appellant has been penalised on the ground that he abetted the first appellant. A reading of the Collector's order shows that he has not relied upon a single piece of positive evidence...
Gurunanak Metal Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1996
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT547Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is whether the appellant, who obtained re-rollable material from the open market in its factory could avail of the credit of duty obtained on such material without producing proof of payment of such duty even after it crossed the limits of exemption provided in 1 /93 or whether it was required to produce duty payment documents. In the order impugned in the appeal the Collector (Appeals) has said that the benefit of deemed credit would not be available to the appellant after it exhausted the exemption slab by Rs. 75 lakhs as provided in Notification 1/93 because of the wording in the order of the Government of India that deemed credit was available only if Notification 1/93 was availed of. Therefore the argument proceeds clearances beyond its value of Rs. 75 lakhs are not governed by the provisions of Notification 1/93. Hence when an assessee crosses this point he is no longer under the umbrella of Notification 1 /93 and therefore deemed credit ...