Mumbai Court September 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.
Lion Pencils (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)(69)LC591Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-original No. S/10-67/85-A dated 23.2.1985 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay.2.1. The appellants are said to be engaged in manufacture of various types of pens and pencils. They imported 5 consignments, which were shipped on the same date and they arrived at Bombay simultaneously.They filed 5 Bs/E for clearance of these consignments. The details as given by the appellants in regard to these Bs/E in the paperbook are briefly indicated as below: (i) 2000 gross-Plastic moulded Barrel value Rs. 42,957-Date of Bill of lading 27.9.84-Proforma Invoice dt. 5.3.84 B/E No. 1593/84-Sought for clearance of goods against licence No. P/D/2236191-authorising import of items figuring in Appx. 5 of A.M. 84 Policy (relevant item in Appx. 5 claimed is S.No. 430). (ii) 2000 gross-Plastic moulded nozzles with feeder and metallic tip- Value Rs. 1,57,6187- B/E No. 1593/88-Sought for clearance against licence referred to in (i) above. (iii) 2000 gross-M...
Gandhi and Associates Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1996
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT523Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal was taken up for consideration after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount.2. The issue in this appeal is the classification of process vessels, reactors and similar goods stated to be made of glass fibre reinforced plastice (FRP) for short. The appellant had classified them under Heading 84.79. This was not agreed to by the Dept., which felt that the appropriate classification was 39.25. After issue of notice and hearing the appellant the Commissioner has confirmed classification of goods under 39.25.3. Advocate for the appellant contends that, in addition to supporting the claim for classification under Heading 84.79, it had in reply to the notice, and at the hearing, urged that in the event that classification under Chapter 84 was not acceptable, the goods could merit classification under Heading 70.14. He points out that, in the order the Commissioner has not at all dealt with, the question of classification of this heading.4. The appellant had claimed classifica...
Shri Chandrakant Vithal Dalvi Vs. Shri R. D. Tyagi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)353
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner hereinafter referred to as the detenue, has impugned the detention order dated 28th November, 1995 passed by the respondent No.1, the Commissioner of Police for Greater Bombay, detaining him under the National Security Act. The said order along with the grounds of detention was served on the detenue on 29th November, 1995.2. The prejudicial activities of the detenue necessitating the passing of the detention order are detailed in the grounds of the detention. Since the question raised in the petition by Mr. U.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is purely a legal one, we are not adverting to them.3. Mr. U.N. Tripathi, vehemently urged that on 5th December 1995, the detenue made a representation to the respondent No.1 and the same till date has not been considered by the said respondent. In his contention, this has rendered the detention of the detenue unsust...
irfan Ahmed Shaikh Vs. Mumtaz and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC511
P.D. Upasani, J.1. This custody petition is filed by the petitioner/ father for the custody of his minor female child Husna who is about 5 years old. He has also taken out Interim Petition for access of the child and also permission to have over night access. Respondent No. 1 is the ex-wife of the petitioner who is now divorced and has remarried another person by name Abdul Karim Sarfani and also has a child from him aged about 11/2 years. No reply was filed to this Interim Custody Petition by the respondent. When the matter came up for hearing on 14.8.1996, Advocate for the petitioner-husband Miss Irani was present. However, respondent and her Advocate were absent. Since no reply was filed to the Interim Custody Petition, the Court heard the Advocate for the petitioner, perused the proceedings, also perused the previous orders dated 26.7.1995 passed by Mr. Rane, J. and order dated 18.4.1995 passed by Mr. A.P. Shah, J., also perused the photographs tendered by the petitioner's Advocate...
Mathuradas Mohota College of Science Vs. R.T. Borkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1996
Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR718; 1997(Supp.)BomCR298:1997(2)MhLJ168
S.B. Mhase, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Nagpur on 7.1.1984 whereby the petition was directed to reinstate the respondent No. 1 in service with effect from 17.3.1982 with continuity and seniority in service Respondent No. 1 is further held to entitled for future pay and allowances from the date he joins and the respondent No. 1 was directed to join his services forthwith or in any case on or before 30.1.1984.2. The petitioner is a Science College and the respondent No. 1 was appointed by order dated 26.9.1991 as a part-time teacher purely on temporary basis to teach the subject of Biology (Botany) eventhough the respondent No. 1 is possessed of M.Sc. degree in Zoology. This was not a regular appointment in a clear vacancy and therefore, his appointment was on hour basis @ Rs.10/-per clock hour. It was a purely temporary appointment subject to the approval from the Education Officer and the Local Managing ...
Shri Tukaram Bango Thakare Vs. Shri Nago Padu Kumbhar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR404
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. The respondents were tenants in respect of the suit agricultural land and on 1.4.1957 they have become statutory purchasers. In the year 1967 under the agreement for sale for some-consideration, possession of the land was transferred to the petitioner. Thereafter it appears that the respondents filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi, Thane under the provisions of Section 84C of the Tenancy Act, contending that the petitioner has not paid the full consideration; no sale deed was effected in favour of the petitioner; that no permission from the Collector as required was obtained for the transfer of possession and as such the petitioner was in unauthorised possession and he is required to be evicted under the provisions of Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Tenancy Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer Bhiwandi by his judgment and order dated 26th October 1981 directed that the petitioner be evicted from the suit land under Section 84C...
Lohia Machines Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT459Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is a second application for rectification of mistake alleged to have crept in this Bench's Final Order No. 1000/94-WRB, dated 23-5-1994. The applicants herein filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original cited above, which was finally decided by this Bench holding that excess components found on examination, which were not declared on the Bill of Entry are liable to confiscation and upheld the order of confiscation, but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 4.00 lacs and remitted the penalty. In the said order, an observation, was also made that the list attested by DGTD does not cover the excess quantity.The applicants moved a rectification application as well as reference application in respect of the said order dated 23-5-1994. They were considered and disposed of by this Bench vide this Bench's Order No.1946/94-WRB, dated 27-10-1994. In their first rectification application, their main grievance was that it has been incorrectly observed by the Tribunal that the list attested...
Smt. Rajashri Rajendra Shasane Vs. Rajendra Babulal Shasane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom65; 1997(2)BomCR264; (1996)98BOMLR559; 1997(1)MhLj254
ORDERM. L. Dudhat, J. 1. This First Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19th February, 1994 in M. J. Petition No. 576 of 1990 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Family Court, Bombay. By the aforesaid judgment the decree, the Family Court passed the decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. In this appeal, the Appellant who is the wife of the respondent got married with the respondent on 7-12-1986. Sometime in the month of October 1987, Appellant returned to her parental home for delivery and gave birth to a female child named Tejasari on 14-1-1988. Respondent-husband filed the present petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce against the present Appellant on the grounds of cruelty and desertion i.e under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family court, while delivering the judgment converted the said petition into a petition for divorce by mututal consent under Section 13-B of the ...
AbdulhusseIn NoorooddIn Kagajwalla and anr. Vs. Messrs Maharashtra Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR246
V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29-8-1990 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay in Chamber Summons No. 1207 of 1989 in S.C. Suit No. 6948 of 1973, whereby the Chamber Summons was made absolute.2. The execution proceedings taken out by the decree holder i.e. the respondents herein against the appellants who have obstructed the execution of the ex-parte decree. A Suit being S.C. Suit No. 6948 of 1973 was filed in the City Civil Court, Bombay against M/s. Gipar Packaging Industries for recovery of the suit premises situated at 1st floor, Kalina Casttle, 175, C.ST. Road, Kalina, Bombay - 29 and for recovery of arrears of compensation and mesne profit etc. The said suit came to be decided ex-parte on 7-1-1988. Under the decree, the defendants-Judgment debtor M/s. Gipar Packaging Industries were directed to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs by 29th February, 1988. Further, the defendants judgment debtor were dir...
Smt. Ranjana Prashant Rathi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR284
M.B. Godehswar, J.1. The petitioners in all these three petitions, Smt. Ranjana Prashant Rathi - wife of detenu Prashant Rathi, Smt. Durga Ramesh Kumar Kaliya @ Agrawal - wife of detenu Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Godavaribai Chaturbhaj Rathi - mother of detenu Kamalkishore Rathi, have challenged the order of detention dated 29.3.1996 passed by Respondent No. 2 Shri C.D. Singh, Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra (P.D.), Home Department (Special) Mantralaya, Bombay under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988) hereinafter referred to for short as 'PITNDPS Act'. As identical questions of law are involved, we propose to decide all these three petitions by common judgment and order.We have heard in all six writ petitions. These three petitions and Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 87, 88 and 134 all of 1996 together. The learned Counsel relied on number of authorities of various Hig...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »