Mumbai Court April 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.
Ebanezer Adebaya Alias Monday Obtor Vs. B.S. Rawat, Collector of Custo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR185; 1996CriLJ3210; 1996(2)MhLj280
Shah, C.J.1. The Division Bench consisting of G. R. Majithia and Vishnu Sahai, JJ. by order dated June 16, 1995 differed with the view taken by the Division Bench consisting of V. H. Bhairavia and P. S. Patankar, JJ. on 21/24th October, 1994 in Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 1993 by observing that the view taken therein requires reconsideration in view of the law laid own by the Apex Court in Mohinder Kumar v. State of Panaji, : 1995CriLJ2074 . 2. In Mohinder Kumar's case : 1995CriLJ2074 , the Investigation Officer was not an empowered officer and on coming to know about the accused person being in custody of offending articles. he was required to follow the procedure prescribed under S. 42 of the Act before carrying out further search and seizure. The person of the accused was searched and two packets of charas were recovered and samples from the said packets were taken. In that context the Court observed that he did not adhere to the provisions of S. 50 of the Act and in that he did not ...
Mehmood Mirza and Etc. Vs. the Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevent ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR400; 1997CriLJ181; 1996(2)MhLj1031
ORDER1. This petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioner-original accused No. 2 praying for quashing the criminal prosecution instituted against him in Criminal Case No. 123/CW of 1983 pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, instituted against him and other accused for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Customs Act and under the provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 2. It is the case of the prosecution on 25th June, 1978, sometimes after midnight, one Mohammed Husain Ahmed Patil, working as an associate shipper for M/s. Wadi Enterprises, along with one Francis Moraes working as a clerk with M/s. Wamdeo and Co., approached Customs Officer Shri S. R. Bhalla, who was on duty at the Air India Cargo Warehouse, Santacruz Airport, Bombay. with a shipping bill for the export of 195 packages said to contain Alphonso mangoes f...
Arvind Bhikaji Kambale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)148
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is an appeal directed against order dated 7-1-1994, in Sessions Case No. 58 of 1993, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara.Heard Mr. Suresh Kumbhar for the appellant and Ms. Jyoti Pawar for the respondent.2. The appellant was prosecuted for murdering his wife for an offence under section 302 I.P.C. The prosecution case is that the deceased Prabhavati was married to the appellant about 16 years back. They had three children. Prabhavati was working in a hostel. The appellant had no job. There used to be frequent quarrels between the husband and wife. It appears that on 5-1-1993, the appellant went to the hostel where his wife was working and demanded her to pay money for drinks which she refused. Then, the appellant left this place by threatening his wife.According to the prosecution, on the same day at about 8.30 or 9 p.m. the accused called his wife and then poured kerosene on her and set fire to her. The children woke up after hearing the hue...
S.N. Puri S/O L. Shadiram and ors. Vs. N. Banerjee and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)83
V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioners praying for a declaration that the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947, are illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India and further praying for quashing and setting aside the criminal prosecution in Criminal Case No. 2253/W of 1972 on the ground that it is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the ground of inordinate, callous, inexplicable and incomprehensible unexplained delay.2. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are directors of petitioner No. 5-Company. A complaint was lodged against the petitioners on the accusation that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under section 120-B, I.P.C. and section 5 of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947, and section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. It is stated th...
S.N. Puri S/O L. Shadiram and ors. Vs. N. Banerjee,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR39
V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioners praying for a declaration that the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947, are illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India and further praying for quashing and setting aside the criminal prosecution in Criminal Case No. 2253/W of 1972 on the ground that it is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the ground of inordinate, callous, inexplicable and incomprehensible unexplained delay.2. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are directors of petitioner No. 5-Company. A complaint was lodged against the petitioners on the accusation that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under section 120B, I.P.C. and section 5 of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947, and section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. It is stated tha...
Bharatsingh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR461
ORDERL. Manoharan, J.1. This application is under Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant/accused who was convicted along with another for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the N.D.P.S. Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.2. The appeal was admitted. The learned Counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Sirpurkar, contended that with due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as is disclosed from the judgment, the sentence awarded to the appellant is liable to be suspended and the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Wahane, on the other hand maintained that in view of Section 32A of N.D.P.S. Act, such suspension of sentence under S...
Prakash Vishwasrao Kohok Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR176
A.D. Mane, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the original accused No. 1 (for short-the 'appellant') who was charged along with his wife Mrs. Kshama Kohak (Original accused No. 2) in Special Case No. 3/90 in the court of Special Judge, Ahmednagar on an accusation that he, in a capacity of a public servant, during the period between March 1967 to November 20th, 1987 had acquired and possessed assets which were dis-proportionate to his known sources of income for which they failed to account satisfactorily and that the co-accused No. 2 aided and abetted the appellant and hence they are liable to be punished under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act').2. The learned Special Judge by his judgment and order dated 3.4.1993 acquitted the accused No. 2 but convicted the appellant under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- ...
Kattapani Ibrahim Kunjamu Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Airport)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT590Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today only the Stay Petition was listed for hearing, however considering the issue involved, granting waiver against the pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for hearing.2. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No.DRI/BZU/C/5/95/5364, dated 13-12-1995, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Sahar International Airport, Mumbai, imposing personal penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) on the appellants, on charge that he was the persons responsible in smuggling of the goods and the remitting the foreign currencies which were the sale proceeds of the smuggled goods.3. Heard Shri N.B. Sonavane the Consultant. He submits that the Show Cause Notice weas served on the appellant, when he was under detention and he could not therefore, file any reply, and notice of personal hearing was sent at the residential address, which would not served on him and was returned undelivered, with the postal endorsement unclaimed. He submits that the appellant was, at...
Atlas Copco India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT122Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this case, appeal has been filed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) in regard to rebate claim arising on account of export of excisable goods. As per the proviso to Section 35B of the CESA, 1944 the Tribunal is barred from going into the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), in respect of orders arising out of export rebate claims. The appeal is therefore filed before a wrong forum. I therefore direct the Registry to return the papers to the appellants for pursuing remedies as available under the law....
Anand Arc Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(65)LC70Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants appeal on merits, they are required to deposit Rs. 93,566/- towards duty and Rs. 5000/-towards penalty.2. This amount is payable in terms of the Commissioner (Appeals) order.There are three grounds on the basis of which Modvat credit is sought to be disallowed: (i) Rs. 4300/- is in respect of subsidiary gate pass which is issued on the basis of supply made by Advance Metal Powder to the applicants factory at Palgarh. This subsidiary gate pass has been endorsed by Palgarh factory to the other unit in Bhandup, on the basis of which credit was taken. (ii) Rs. 10,066/- is held to be ineligible on the ground that invoice has been issued by a dealer who is not registered. It is pointed out during the hearing that dealer was subsequently registered on 17.8.1994 and requirement of registration introduced from 4.7.1994 was relaxed upto 31.12.1994. (iii) An amount of Rs. 79,200/- is sought to be disallowed on the ground that invoices were not issued in their favour...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »