Mumbai Court July 1996 Judgments
Silkon Silk Mills (Exports) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus.-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT151Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original No.113/95, dated 21-12-1995 of the Commissioner of Customs-II, Bombay ordering confiscation of the Exports consignment vide Section 113(d) and (i/ of the Customs Act, 1962 with option to pay redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-and imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-on Silkon Silk Mills (Exports) Ltd., Rs. 50,000/- on Mr. Shreeram Chaudhary, besides penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on Kamalkumar Agarwal and Rs. 5,000/- on Mr. T.Thomas. The last two persons however do not seem to have filed any appeal against the said order.2. The Silkon Silk Mills (Exports) Ltd. filed Five Shipping Bills for exports of the Polyester Dyed Fabrics-Textile pieces goods. On so information received, the consignments lying in the Docks awaiting shipment, were checked and weighed 100% and as a result thereof, it was ascertained that the weight mentioned in the Shipping Bills was in all, excess by 4960.361 kgs. than the actual weight and as such there was a dif...
Tag this Judgment!Baburao and Etc. Vs. the Collector, District Parbhani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom49; (1996)98BOMLR567
ORDERChapalgaonkar, J.1. These writ petitions challenge proceedings of a special meeting of Parbhani Municipal Council held on 6-11-1995. The special meeting was called to consider vote of no confidence against President of the Council. 2. Shri V. N. Kallam, Sub-Divisional Officer was authorized by the Collector, Parbhani to preside over this meeting. When the meeting commenced, 8 members of the Municipal Council submitted an application to the Presiding Officer requesting that votes on the Resolution be recorded by secret ballot. This application is at Exhibit B at page 22 in the compilation of the petition. There is no dispute that in exercise of his discretion under Rule 33, Presiding Officer decided to take votes by ballot. It appears that soon after this decision, 12 members of the Council submitted similar applications requesting the assistance of the person named in application in casting vote.3. We are told that these applications were allowed and the applicants were allowed to...
Tag this Judgment!Nandlal Sakharam Vs. Babu Bhika and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: 1998(2)BomCR392
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. These three appeals have been clubbed together for the purposes of disposal as the common question of law is involved in ail these appeals. Not only that, but the facts available in these three appeals are akin to each other except the few dates which will be separately stated hereinafter. However, due to the said difference, the result of appeals will not be affected and therefore, they are being decided together by a common judgment.2. Appeal No. 17 of 82 and Appeal No. 203 of 82, so far as the (acts are concerned, are same, except the change in the names of parties. The facts in these appeals are -The suit properties involved in these suits are the properties of Jahagirdar, viz. Nurul Jiyauddin s/o Nurtil Attkiya. The said Jahagirdar had executed lease of the suit land in favour of three persons, viz. Sakharam, Ganeshlal and Motilal permanently under the registered deed of lease dated 28th June 1945. The defendants wererecorded annual tenants of the suit land i...
Tag this Judgment!Sham Alias Raju R. Anpur and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ581; 1997(1)MhLj337
N.D. Vyas, J.1. The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th February 1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune convicting all the three Appellants (Original Accused) of having committed offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 308 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and three years R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 308 of IPC. The sentences are further directed to run concurrently. Being aggrieved, the present Appeal is preferred.2. The prosecution case is as follows :- All the Accused were at the relevant time residents of Bhimnagar locality of Pune. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are friends of accused No. 1. The complainant Pandit Waman Landge (i.e. PW-6) and his brother Vasant (i.e. the deceased) were also living in the said locality. Pandit had married Accused No. 1's sister by name Parvatibai. Till the date of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunnabai Wd/O Ganeshlal (Deleted) and Others Vs. Ashru Son of Waman an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR313; 1998(2)BomCR861; 1998(2)MhLj161
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A. No. 33/66 passed by the District Judge, Buldana on 31-1-1981, wherein the said District Judge confirmed the decree of dismissal of the Suit No. 262/64 passed by Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Mankar dated 12-10-1965. The present appellants are original plaintiffs. 2. The facts of this appeal are as under :--The suit properties involved in this suit are the properties of Jahagirdar, viz. Nurul Jiyauddin son of Nurul Attkiya, The said Jahagirdar had executed lease of the suit land in favour of three persons viz., Sakharam, Ganeshlal and Motilal permanently under the registered deed of lease dated 28-6-1945. The defendants were recorded annual tenants of the suit land in the Record of Right. Therefore, Sakharam and others including Jahagirdar served a notice to quit under section 74(2) of the Berar land Revenue Code and then filed a suit bearing No. 94-A/47 against the defendants for possession of the su...
Tag this Judgment!Govekar K.S. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ906Bom
P.S. Patankar, J. 1. The question involved in this Petition is whether the Petitioner is entitled to get invalid pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.2. The Petitioner was working as Hamal in the Victoria Jubilee Institute, Matunga, Bombay during the period from November 17, 1955 to January 6, 1981 i.e. for about 25 years and two months. It is a Technical Institute. He was the permanent Class IV employee. The said Institute is aided by the Government of Maharashtra and the Pension Rules of the State are adopted by it.3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he submitted application for voluntary retirement as he was physically disabled. He has crossed the ge of 55 and was permitted to retire from January 17, 1981 on compassionate grounds. At that time, the Petitioner could not claim pension. He got only gratuity. It is his further case that pension and Death-cum retirement Gratuity Scheme is made applicable to the employees of non Government aided Engineer...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Balaji Maroti Gadegaonkar Vs. Managing Director, M.S. Co-op. Land ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR503
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. Reference under section 10(1)(c) read with section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Court, Aurangabad to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Aurangabad, vide Case No. 22/1980. The point under reference was: 'Shri B.M. Gadegaonkar, Ex-Supervisor, who has been terminated from the employment of Maharashtra State Co-op. Land Development Bank Limited, Bombay, Branch Nanded, should be reinstated with back wages, and continuity of service w.e. from 29-12-1976.'2. The facts of the present case, which are necessary to be narrated for the purposes of decision of the present case are that the employee Shri B.M. Gadegaonkar, who has been titled as a Second Party in the reference proceedings was working as a Junior Supervisor with the First Party i.e. the Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited, Bombay, Branch Nanded (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank' for the purposes of brevity). From the record, it is...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskarrao Onkar Deshpande Vs. Pushpa W/O Prabhakar Joshi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR816
S.B. Mhase, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 265 of 1979 by the District Judge, Buldana on 30th September, 1982 whereby the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 104 of 1977 by the Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Buldana on 28th September, 1979 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 6, was reversed and thereby it was declared by the District Judge, Buldana that the sale deed dated 7th April, 1965 executed by original defendant No. 2 and deceased Ganesh in favour of original defendant No. 1 with respect to survey No. 33/2 is not binding on the joint 6/7th share of the original plaintiffs. It is further ordered that the defendant No. 1 shall deliver joint possession of 6/7th share in the suit land to the plaintiffs. Therefore, original defendant No. 1 is appellant before this Court while original plaintiffs 1 to 6 are the respondents 1 to 6 and original defendant No. 2 is respondent No. 7. Pen...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Asha @ Deepa Ramchand Sharma Vs. Shri Ramchandra Laxmandas Sharma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR55
R.M. Lodha, J.1. In this Misc. Civil Application made under Section 23(3) and 24 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner Smt. Asha @ Deepa Ramchand Sharma prays that Marriage Petition No. 99 of 1990 be transferred from the Court of Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane to the Court of Civil Judge, senior Division at Jamnagar (State of Gujarat) for its hearing and disposal and also transfer of Misc. Application No. 150 of 1990 from the Court of IIIrd Additional District Judge, Thane to the Court of District Judge at Jamnagar for hearing and disposal of the said application.2. The parties viz. Smt. Asha and the Respondent Shri Ramchand Sharma married sometime in the year 1981. Out of the wedlock, two sons and one daughter were born. It appears that alter sometime, the matrimonial dispute arose between the parties and the allegation of the wife is that in the year 1988, she was thrown down from the first floor of the building by the husband. The wi...
Tag this Judgment!M. R. Muchhala Vs. Fourth Income Tax Officer. (Also Ito V. Mahesh R. M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Mumbai)504
ORDERO. P. JAIN, J.M. :These cross - appeals arise out of the order of the CIT(A), dt. 27th Feb., 1989 pertaining to the asst. yr. 1984-85. After hearing the learned representative of the parties, the appeals are disposed of as under.Assessees appeal2. The first issue relates to the addition sustained by the CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 18,09,893 out of the consideration received on sale of the proprietary concern of the assessee. The assessee, an individual, was carrying out proprietary business under the name and style of M/s M. M. P. International. The business was that of a consulting and indenting agent and import and sale of machinery spare parts. Another business activity of the assessee was shareholding and salary income from a company, M/s Muchhala Consultants Pvt. Ltd., of which he was one of the directors. The proprietary business was started during the period relevant to the asst. yr. 1982-83. On 23rd March, 1984, the assessee had agreed to sell the said proprietary business w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »