Mumbai Court August 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.
Babu Bhika Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3952
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7-5-83 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 109 of 1982 convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months under S. 302, IPC has come up in appeal before us. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :- The informant Sitabai Trimbak Bahirat PW 11 was the wife of the deceased. PW 15 Punjabai was her daughter. PW 14 Indubai and PW 16 Drupadabai were her nieces, being the daughters of Nivrutti, the real brother of the deceased. It is alleged that there was some litigation in respect of land between the appellant and the deceased. On the date of the incident i.e. on 17th May 1982 at about 8-8.30 p.m. the deceased Trimbak left for the house of one Damu Bhika PW 17. About half an hour to one hour later Indubai, Punjabai and Drupadabai heard cries of Trimbak 'run, run'. Thereupon they ran ...
Kotak and Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: 1997(92)ELT480(Bom)
P.S. Patankar, J.1. The Petitioners imported American Whole Green Peas from a seller from Seattle. The Bills of Entry in that respect were filed on 6th October, 1988. Under Notification No. 129/76 the Customs Duty payable was 10%. However, by Notification No. 286/88 the said Notification was amended and the duty on pulses was increased from 10% to 35%. 2. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Notification No. 129/76 is applicable and they were liable to pay 10% customs duty only. However, they were charged wrongly according to the amended Notification No. 286/88. According to the Petitioners the vessel arrived at Bombay on 1st October, 1988 and docked on 2nd October, 1988 and hence they were liable to pay 10% duty only under Notification No. 129/76. Therefore, they filed Refund application on 28th June, 1989 claiming refund of Rs. 1,67,547/- alleging that the said amount was wrongfully recovered from them. The said application came to be rejected by the Respondent No. 2 on the gro...
Sonia Fisheries and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: 1997(90)ELT22(Bom)
ORDERM.B. Shah, C.J.1. To the petitioner No. 1, M/s. Sonia Fisheries, Advance Licence dated 14th September, 1993 was granted for import of (1) Kraft paper other than ivory board, (2) Cardboard other than Ivory Board (3) HDPE/PP Granules (4) Preservatives and (5) Raw material for fishing net in accordance with and on the basis of the Export Import Policy for April, 1992 to March, 1997 and the Duty Exemption Scheme contained therein. 2. It is submitted by the Petitioners that as there were no norms fixed at the relevant time for the said items of import, the Application of the Petitioners for issuance of the said Advance Licence was considered by the Advance Licensing Committee for fixation of norms as per the Import Export Policy. The Advance Licensing Committee consisted of technical persons, Customs Officers and other 10 persons which considered the Petitioners' application for the said Advance Licence and as per the Advance Licence the Petitioner No. 1 was required to export Sea Food...
Textile Corporation of Marathwada Vs. Prabhakar Balajirao Deshpande an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR18; (1997)IILLJ466Bom
1. This is a petition by the employer-Textile Corporation of Marathwada through its Managing Director, Nanded. The Respondent No. 1 - Prabhakar Balajirao Deshpande, was working as an Operator as a Badli worker in Caustic Recovery Plant of the petitioner-industry. 2. The undisputed facts are, the Respondent No. 1 was serving as an Operator in the said Caustic Recovery Plant since May 22, 1976 and was on the list of casual workers and a Card to that effect was given to him. On June 2, 1979, the Respondent No. 1 was suspended and the chargesheet dated June 5, 1979 was issued in which four charges were framed against him, which are as under : - (i) Wilful insubordination and disobedience of lawful and reasonable order of the superior; (ii) Disorderly and indecent behaviour in the premises of the Undertaking; (iii) Commission of an act subversive of the discipline in the premises of the Undertaking; and (iv) Wilful damage to work in process of Undertaking. The Respondent No. 1 was called...
Tata Memorial Centre Vs. Sanjay Sharma (Dr.) and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR4]; (1997)IIILLJ241Bom
Ebello, J. 1. The respondent No. 1 herein filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 69 of 1994 before the VII Labour Court at Bombay against the petitioner herein. The said complaint was filed under the provisions of Item No. 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU and PULP Act.) In the said complaint the Respondent No. 1 herein also sought interim reliefs. The Labour Court by its order dated April 28, 1994 was pleased to grant prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the application for interim reliefs. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner herein preferred Revision Application (ULP) No. 58 of 1994 before the Industrial Court at Bombay. The Industrial Court initially granted an interim order. It may also be mentioned that the Respondent No. 1 herein had also preferred revision application which was numbered as review application 7 of 1994. Both the revisio...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. G. Claridge and Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT420Tri(Mum.)bai
1. With consent of both parties the appeal itself was taken up for hearing after granting waiver of pre-deposit.2. The appellant imported a paper/pulp moulding plant, which was cleared, as claimed by the importer, under Tariff Item 9801.00 under Notification 315/93. Both these relate to import of a project, for which there is a concessional rate of duty. Subsequently, the appellant claimed re-assessment of the goods, under Notification 64/87, the rate of duty provided therein being lower than the rate applicable to Project Imports. It also claimed refund the difference in duty between the two rates. The Asst. Commissioner rejected the claim. In appeal the Commissioner accepted the importer's claim and set aside the Asst.Collector's order. Hence this appeal by the Deptt.3. The Deptt. representative contends that once the goods have been classified under Heading 9801.00, which is specific for Project Import, they lose their identity as machines classifiable under Chapter 84.Since Notifi...
Nandan Textiles (P). Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)60ITD382(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the ld.CIT(A) dated 20-1-1989 wherein the assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal out of which ground No. 7 being of general nature do not require any consideration. As regards other grounds of appeal, the assessee's appeal was allowed except Ground No. 4, vide Tribunal's order dated 26th April, 1994 and later on as a result of Tribunal's order dated 14-6-1995 in Misc. Appln. No. 64/Bom./95, ground No. 4 was dismissed on merits. Subsequently, the assessee filed another Misc. Appln. No.168/Bom/95 on which the Tribunal vide its order dated 18-12-1995 recalled its order dated 14-6-1995 in Misc. Appln. No. 64/Bom/95 relating to ground No. 4 only, which relates to allowability of investment allowance. So far as the other grounds of appeal are concerned, the order of the Tribunal dated 26th April, 1994 stands.2. We have heard the counsel for the assessee as well as the ld. D.R., but before considering their submissions, we would l...
Indian Labour Organisation and ors. Vs. D.H. Deshmukh, Presiding Offic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2449]; (1998)IIILLJ512Bom
Tipnis, J. 1. This petition is filed by a trade union - Indian Labour Organisation. The 2nd respondent is Tata Electric Companies, Trombay, Generating Station, Chembur. The 3rd respondent is Yashmun Engineers Ltd. The 4th and 5th respondents are Union of India and State of Maharashtra respectively. The petitioning union by this petition is espousing the case of 15 workmen who are members of the said trade union. 2. The petition seeks to challenge the common order dated 26th June 1995 passed by the learned Member of the 6th Labour Court in 15 applications for payment of minimum wages. All these applications were dismissed. The petition also seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra to forthwith fix minimum wages for all factories/establishments not covered by the entries in the schedule to the Minimum Wages Act. The aforesaid relief of writ of mandamus against the State of Maharashtra was on the basis of the fact that on 11th October 1994 the State Government issue...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Modison Metal Refiners
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT563Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the appeals from the Revenue are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. M-l 156-1157/B-H-272-273/85, dated 18-7-1985 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Initially only a composite appeal No. E/3077/85 was preferred challenging the said order. Because by the said Order-in-Appeal the Collector (Appeals) has disposed of two orders-in-original, the procedural requirement necessitated filing of two separate appeals. On being pointed out, the department has filed second appeal bearing No.E/1289-R/96 and as the same is filed beyond the time limit specified, application for condonation is also filed.3. Considering the reasons for the delay and also the fact that appeal initially filed challenged both the orders dealt with in the composite order in appeal, the delay in filing the appeal No. E/1289-R/96 is condoned.4. Having orally declared the aforesaid order, both the appeals were taken up for final hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.5. The Re...
Panchmahal Steels Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT516Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 12/Demand dated 24-9-1994 of the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara.2. The Appellants, engaged in manufacture of Steel products falling within Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff, availed of Modvat credit facility for the inputs received by filing appropriate declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They were however, served with 7 Show Cause Notices raising a total demand of Rs. 56,06,745.30 ps. proposing to disallow Modvat benefit of the same on various items, inter alia alleging that (i) the appellants availed of Modvat credit of duty paid on defective stainless Ingots/Flats falling within T.I. 7220.10 or 7218.00 on ground that they were not the inputs declared and the declaration filed by them was for waste and scrap falling within T.I. 7204.20 and hence were not entitled to Modvat credit and (ii) availment of deemed credit benefit vide Govt. Order dated 12-7-1990 on Copper and Aluminium scrap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »