Mumbai Court March 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.
Polymermann (Asia) P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT594Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing the arguments from both the sides, we have taken up the appeal itself for disposal, granting waiver of pre-deposit. In the impugned order of the lower authorities, Modvat credit has been denied in respect of inputs received under two invoices from M/s. Godrej-GE Appliances Ltd. only on the ground that instead of duplicate copy of the invoice, which is the permitted document for taking Modvat credit, the appellants have taken credit on the basis of triplicate and original copy of the invoice, which are not meant for transport of the goods. We have perused the copies of the invoice and we also take note of the fact that clearance of goods under invoice instead of gate-pass was introduced from 1-4-1994. These two invoices are dated 28-4-1994.During the initial period, on the basis of representation from the assessee, the Board had given certain relaxation vide Baroda Commissionerate Trade Notice No. 41/94, dated 4-4-1994. On perusal of the copy of the invoice, we find th...
M.A. Salam Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT305Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants' Appeals on merits, M/s. World Wide Traders are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,17,486/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Four Hundered Eighty Six only) towards the duty. Whereas the Appellants Shri M.A. Salam and Shri Sadiq Ahmed the Partners in the firm have to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two Lakhs only) towards the penalty and Mr. Mahendra C.Shrimankar the Customs House Agent is, required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only).2. Mr. Anil Balani the ld. Advocate appearing for the M/s. World Wide Traders and two partners, submits that the DEEC Books were issued between the September, 1988 to December, 1987, and the exports were effected during the year 1989-90, and export obligation therefore were already completed and all, the 3 DEEC Pass Books were closed in the year 1992-94. The JCCI & E also released of bond and as such by the year 1994, so far as these 3 DEEC Pass Book were concerned, everything w...
Shri Prakash Yeshwant Manjarekar Vs. Shri Satish Sahney, Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR724
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India preferred by the petitioner, who is the real brother of the detenu Ashok @ Babu s/o Yeshwant Manjarekar, seeks to impugn the order dated 13th February, 1995 passed by respondent No. 1 detaining the detenu under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.2. The detention order was served on the detenu on 28th July, 1995.3. The prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance of the detention order are contained in the grounds of detention which are annexed as Exhibit 'C' to the petition. In our view, recapitulating those grounds would not be necessary for the disposal of this petition.4. The short ground on which Mr. Prakash Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenges the detention order is the inordinate delay on the part of respondent No. 3, the Superintendent of Jail, Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur, in forwarding the representation of the detenu to the respondent N...
Ashraf HussaIn Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3147
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. The appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 13th December 1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Sessions Case No. 91 of 1992, convicting and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment under section 302 IPC, has come up in appeal before us. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under : The informant Suraj Paste (P.W. 1), Mahesh Tilekar (P.W. 2) and the deceased Harishchandra Nachankar were friends. On 20th July 1992 at about 7 p.m. they had gone on an autorickshaw to see places like Thiba Palace, Hanuman Temple etc. in Ratnagiri. At about 10.30 p.m. the same day, they reached the rummy club of Adam Memon, situate near the new vegetable market, within the limits of Ratnagiri City Police Station, Ratnagiri. At that time the deceased Harishchandra asked the appellant, who was present in the club, as to where Adam Memon was. On that the appellant hotly replied that he did not know his whereabouts and he could search for him. An e...
Manoj Shivaji Trimukhe Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR374; (1996)98BOMLR174; 1997CriLJ178; 1996(2)MhLj477
Sahai J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 21-2-1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 295 of 1993, convicting and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months under Section 302, IPC has come up in appeal before us. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :- The informant Shankar Rajwade PW 1 was a friend of the deceased Balu Padale. On 8-4-1993 at about 9.15 p.m., the informant went to a betel shop. Near that shop, the deceased Balu Padale, Nithin Dhakate, Sonkul, Lalit Gujar and Pravin Bhallange were sitting. The appellant and acquitted accused Nagesh Tirmukhe who was also standing nearby called Balu Padale by sings. Balu told them that he would not come and they should come near him. Accordingly, the appellant and the acquitted accused came near him. One of them told Balu that his maternal uncle was calling him. Balu Padale replied that he did not ...
Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and General Kamgar Union Vs. State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR187; 1996(2)MhLj963
Majithia, J. 1. The petitioner, Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and General Kamgar Union, has sought a mandate to respondent No. 1 to nominate only its nominees on the Boards of respondent Nos. 2 to 5, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The gravamen of the petitioner's allegation is that right from the enactment of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (for brevity 'the Act') till date, respondent No. 1 nominated the representatives of Mathadi workers on the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 Boards after taking into consideration the membership of the trade union. The trade union having maximum number of membership was given representation. Nine thousand eight hundred twenty eight Mathadi workers are registered with respondent No. 2 out of which 8823 are members of the petitioner-union. Respondent No. 1 nominated only one office bearer of the petitioner-union on the Board of respondent No. 2. R...
Maharashtra State Transport Kamgar Sanghatana Vs. Maharashtra State Ro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR525; [1996(73)FLR1410]; (1997)ILLJ31Bom; 1996(2)MhLj909
Majithia, J.1. The Petitioner, Maharashtra State Transport Kamgar Sanghatana, has challenged notification dated February 5, 1996 to the extent that a representative of respondent No. 3 has been appointed as non-official Director of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act (for brevity 'the Act') provides for the establishment of Road Transport Corporation for the whole or any part of the State. Section 5(1) of the Act says that the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of a corporation constituted under Section 3 shall vest in a Board of Directors. Section 5(2) says that the Board shall consist of a Chairman and such other Directors, being not less than 5 and not more than 17, as the State Government may think fit to appoint. Section 5(4) says that the rules made under the Act shall provide for the representation, both of t...
Suraksha Rakshak Kamgar Union, Bombay Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR130; 1996(2)MhLj194
1. The petitioner, Suraksha Rakshak Kamgar Union, has challenged Notification No. SGA 1395/(2828) Labour 5 dated January 8, 1996 in so far as it related to the nomination of representatives on the Security Guards Board and the vires of Section 6(3) of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment of Welfare Act, 1981 (for brevity 'the Act')) was enacted with the avowed object of regulating the employment of private security guards employed in factories and establishments in the State of Maharashtra and for making better provisions for their terms and conditions of employment and welfare through the establishment of a Board. The Act envisages framing of scheme or schemes providing for registration of employers and security guards in any factory or establishment and provide for the terms and conditions of employme...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Raaj Unocal Lubricants Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR292
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. BY this application numbered and registered as suit under the provisions of section 20 of The Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act') the plaintiff seeks to have the arbitration agreement filed in this Court and an order of reference to arbitration in accordance therewith.2. The plaintiff carries on business inter alia of marketing lubricants produced by blending base oil with adhesives. The defendant owns an oil blending plant at village Jharsaintly, 40th road, Ballabgrah, Haryana (for short, 'the said plant'). The plaintiff, being desirous of obtaining the services of oil blending facilities in Northern India on a contract basis, on 22nd February, 1994 entered into an agreement with the defendant for blending, packaging and loading of SERVO/I.O.C. brand lubricants at the said plant on the terms and conditions mentioned therein (for short, 'the said Agreement'). The said agreement was executed at Bombay and Clause 34 thereof records an agreement by and be...
Shakuntala Vs. Pralhad Bhimrao Vhatkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC255
G.D. Kamat, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated31st January, 1990 rejecting the application of the Appellant instituted under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Family Court, Bombay. The Appellant had claimed the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for herself and at the same rate for her four minor children2. The maintenance was contested by the husband firstly on the ground that he hasten maintaining all his four children and for that matter had even placed them in a Boarding School and further that the Appellant has not been neglected by him and on the contrary it is the Appellant who is not ready to co-habit with him. In support of her case for maintenance, the Appellant led her evidence and also that of one Narayan More (P.W.2). The Respondent husband adduced evidence of himself and that of his son Shankar. Based upon the evidence, the Learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that Appellant failed to make out any case under Section ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »