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.
Hematic Motors P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT592Tri(Mum.)bai
The appellants took Modvat credit in respect of certain inputs received under the subsidiary Gate Pass cum certificate. The goods were improted by M.M.T.C. and countervailing was paid on the goods between 11-12-1984 to 21-12-1984. In respect of these goods, M.M.T.C. issued a certificate in favour of M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. who in turn sold the goods to the appellants against the subsidiary gate pass, on the basis of which Modvat credit was taken after filing the declaration. However, this was objected to by the Asstt. Commissioner on the ground that duty has been paid in respect of the inputs prior to 31-1-1986 and hence the credit taken was sought to be disallowed. On adjudication by the Asstt. Commissioner, the matter was pursued before the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the order of the Asstt. Commissioner. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal.2. Shri Gaikwad, the ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants, pleads that the restriction that the inputs should have...
Shri Mahendra @ Babuwa Dashrath Contractor Vs. Shri Satish Sahney, Com ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR48; 1997BomCR(Cri)91
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Heard Mr. Shirish Gupte for the petitioner (detenu). Mr. Rajiv L. Patil, A.P.P. for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. J.C. Satpute for respondent No. 3.By means of this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (the detenu) has impugned the Order dated 26th April, 1995 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai, Mumbai (respondent No. 1) in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, detaining him (the petitioner) under the aforesaid Act. 2. The grounds of detention are annexed at Exhibit C to the petition. However, in our opinion, to recapitulate the grounds is not necessary for the disposal of this writ petition.3. Mr. Shirish Gupte, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the detention order stands vitiated on account of the fact that there was inordinate delay on the part of the respondent No. 2 (State of Maharashtra) in considering the representatio...
KamaruddIn N. Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR209; (1996)98BOMLR159
M.B. Shah, C.J.1. Writ Petition No. 3681 of 1983 filed by Kamruddin N. Shaikh and Writ Petition No. 4726 of 1986 filed by the Maharashtra Land Development Corporation were dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 13th/17th March, 1992. This Court arrived at the conclusion that Survey No. 345-A situated at Dahisar, Thane District which subsequently became Sub-District of Bandra, Bombay Suburban District, admeasuring 209 acres was a Forest Land. With regard to this land bearing Survey No. 345-A and other properties, it is an admitted fact that Bai Fatimabai widow of Haji Alimohammed Haji Cassum had filed Suit No. 3415 of 1947 before this Court for administration of the estate of her deceased husband and for other reliefs. The Court had appointed Receiver in respect of the suit properties. The Court Receiver had invited offers for sale of the properties and the highest offer of Rs. 13,50,000/- made by one Khimal Lalchand was accepted on 27th March, 1962. The Receiver was direct...
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC71Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though this day, appeal was listed for admission a only, after hearing both the sides, I find that the issue has recurring implication and hence calls for admission. Both sides were allowed to argue the appeal itself and the appeal was taken up for disposal. In the impugned orders of the lower authorities, they denied Modvat benefit under Rule 57Q in respect of fixtures and baskets, which the appellants claimed as Capital Goods eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The lower authorities have taken the view that fixtures and baskets do not form integral part of furnace/ovens and the same are used as material handling equipment and hence no credit is available on the same. They held that these two items do not fall within the definition of Capital Goods since they do not cause any change in the substance and such equipments cannot be held to produce or process any goods.2. Shri V.K. Puri, the ld. SDR's main contention is that these baskets and fixtures are used for placing the c...
Schrader Duncan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT596Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though the appeal is listed for admission only, since it is pleaded that despite the fact that they have brought the inputs under the cover of Bill of Entry directly from the Private Bonded Customs Ware House, Mod-vat credit is being denied and it has serious reusing implication.The appeal was admitted. Both the sides argued on the appeal. Hence appeal is taken up for disposal.2. Certain inputs which were imported by MRF Ltd. and warehoused in their Private Bonded Warehouse were cleared under Ex bond Bill of Entry. On clearance against Ex bond Bill of Entry, the goods were directly transported from the Bonded Warehouse to the appellants by suitably endorsing on the reverse of the Bill of Entry to the effect that full quantity of the goods covered by Ex Bond Bill of Entry was transferred to the appellants and M/s. MRF Ltd. had not availed Modvat credit in respect of countervailing duty covered by the Bill of Entry.The department's objection is that this is not an authorised document...
Bharat Electronics Ltd. Vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd. Employees Union an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR27; [1996(74)FLR2147]; (1997)IIILLJ812Bom
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. The Petitioner is a Government of India Undertaking. The 1st Respondent is a registered Trade Union representing employees of the Petitioners. The Standing Orders applicable to the employees of the Petitioner Company was certified by the Certifying Officer for Maharashtra, Goa, Daman and Diu and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bombay on July 7, 1981. The Petitioner, on November 8, 1985, made a proposal modifying the existing Certified Standing Order by inserting additional Standing Orders 19(xiv), 19(xv), 19(vi) and 19(xvii). The 1st Respondent also made a proposal for amending the Standing Order of Clause 10 in August, 1986. 2. The modification proposed by the Petitioners in Clause 19 of Standing Order will have the effect of prescribing certain political activities as misconduct. The modification proposed reads as under :- '(xiv) Becoming as office bearer of a political party of an organisation which, takes part in politics. (xv) Taking pa...
Sadhana Textile Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. S.S. Hirurkar, Member Industrial Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR20; [1996(73)FLR1271]; (1998)IIILLJ1027Bom
Majithia J.1. This judgment disposes of writ petitions Nos. 1336 of 1995 1337 of 1995, 1338 of 1995, 1339 of 1995, 1340 of 1995, 1341 of 1995, 1342 of 1995, 1343 of 1995, 1344 of 1995, 1345 of 1995, 1346 of 1995, 1347 of 1995 and Appeal No. 564 of 1994 in Writ Petition No. 1607 of 1994. In the Writ petitions, challenge has been made to the order of the Industrial Court dated April 29, 1994 passed in appeals filed under Sec. 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Appeal No. 564 of 1994 is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated July 25, 1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 1607 of 1994, 11 workmen had challenged the order of the Industrial Court denying them 50% backwages. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge and the order is under challenge in the appeal. The appeal has been admitted for hearing. 2. The factual matrix is as under :- The Petitioner, Sadhana Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., suspended from service one Dinanath Haribhau...
Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Company Vs. Tata Hydro Companies Empl ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR593]
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Mr. C.U. Singh waives service for Respondent No. 1. Mr. M.S. Paranjape waives service for Respondent No. 3 3. Respondent No. 2 is deleted from the writ petition on the oral application of Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 need not be served as they are formal parties. 4. By consent, Rule is called out for final hearing and heard. 5. Normally, it is not the practice of this Court to interfere in interlocutory matters where substantial justice is done. Contrary to normal practice, it has become necessary to interfere with the impugned ex-parte order as I am satisfied that the order was made either in ignorance of or total defiance of the law laid down on the subject of granting of ex-parte orders, by a judgment of this Court in Dalal Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramrao Bhaurao Sawant & Ors. 1991 2 CLR 808 (to which I was a party.) 6. There were repeated complaints voiced in several matters...
Anand A. Kanolkar and anr. Vs. Director of Education, Govt. of Goa and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR149; 1996(5)BomCR237
R.K. Batta, J. 1. The petitioners who are working as Peons in Shri Durga English School, respondent No. 2, seek directions to the respondents to pay arrears of salaries from 2-12-1991 and to continue to pay salary regularly hereafter.2. The petitioners' case, in brief, is that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Peon at the respondent No. 2 School vide Appointment Order dated 6-6-1989 and his appointment was approved by respondent No. 1 by order dated 14-12-1990. The said approval was upto the academic year 1990-91. The petitioner No. 1 was paid salary till the end of academic session 1991. In pursuance of directions given by respondent No. 1, posts of 2 Peons - one of which was held by petitioner No. 1, were advertised for fresh recruitment. The petitioners were selected and were appointed in respondent's No. 1 School with effect from 2-12-1991. The petitioners claim that in terms of Rule 76(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986 (hereinafter called 'the said Rules') ...
Raju Vithal Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC332
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment dated 20th December, 1993 in Sessions Case No. 332 of 1993 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. We have heard the learned Counsel Mr. B.R. Patil for the appellant and Mr. M.P.Galeria, the learned A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra.2. The appellant was prosecuted by the police alongwith his mother for offences under Sections 302, 498A, 323 and 504 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The prosecution case, stated briefly, is as follows :The appellant is the husband of the deceased Kavita. The marriage had taken place about one year prior to the date of incident viz, 18th March, 1993. According to the prosecution, after some time after the marriage the husband and in-laws were ill-treating the deceased and were demanding her to bring more money from her parents, which she could not bring since her parents were poor. Then the ill-treatment continued.It is the prosecution case that on the fateful day i.e., 18th March...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »