Mumbai Court January 1997 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.
Gujarat Narmada Valley Vs. C.C.E. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT499Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals have been filed against separate adjudication orders passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara. By his order dated 13-10-1995 the Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,28,87,437/- as Modvat on capital goods wrongly utilised by the appellants during the period May 1994 to February '95 under Rule 57U of Central Excise Rules (Appeal No. 975/95 Bom.). By the other order dated 14-5-1996 the Commissioner has similarly confirmed demand of Rs. 6,57,55,620/- for the period March 1995 to September '95 (Appeal No.1408/96 Bom.).2. The point at issue is whether duty credit on Capital goods permitted under Rule 57Q can be utilised for payment of duty only on those final product which have been manufactured out of such capital goods, or whether it can be utilised for payment of duty on any final product manufactured in the factory of manufacturer. SECTION "AAAA" OF CENTRAL EXCISE RULES: CREDIT OF DUTY PAID ON CAPITAL GOODS USED BY THE OF SPECIFIED GOO...
Arun Vaman Kane Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Bom374; 1997(3)ALLMR575; 1997(4)BomCR220; (1997)3BOMLR554; 1997(2)MhLj756
ORDER1. Heard both sides at length.Perused the papers and affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No.4.The petitioner is a member of Village Panchayat of Gorsai Village. By order date 17-5-1996 passed by the Collector. Thane District, it was held that he is disqualified as a Member in view of Section 14(h) read with Section 16(2) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act. 1958. The said order came to be challenged on behalf of the petitioner and the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai by order dated 18-9-1996 dismissed the same. The same is under challenge in this petition.2. Admittedly the petitioner was served with a bill demanding an amount of Rs.108/- towards the house tax etc. on 7-12-1995. The said bill is dated 27-7-1995. It seems that writ of demand under Section 129(2) also came to be affixed at the resident premises of the petitioner on 30-12-1995.3. It was the case of the petitioner that he had gone to the Village Panchayat on 25th-26th March,1996 for making payment, but ...
ishwar Naidu and Etc. Etc. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR215; (1997)2BOMLR670; 1997CriLJ712; 1998(2)MhLj619
ORDER1. This group of 8 contempt petitions give rise to the identical question and, therefore, these contempt petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. To avoid multiplicity, the facts obtaining in contempt petition No. 298/95 are adverted to. According to this Petitioner he has been in use, occupation and possession of a structure bearing gala No. 5 admeasuring 4.70 to 4.80 metres situate at C.T.S. 1322 S. No. 161. Jeetnagar, Near Bharatnagar, Opp. Varsowa, Four Bungalow, Andheri (W), Bombay for last more than 20 years and has been carrying on business in the said structure. According to the Petitioner in the month of October 1991 the officers of Respondent No. 1 herein viz. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay threatened him to demolish the aforesaid structure which compelled the Petitioner and other Petitioners to file a joint suit against the Respondents bearing No. L.C. Suit No. 6068/91. Ultimately they thought it fit to file separate suit ...
Prakash S/O. Sakharam Mandale Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)MhLj75
1. This appeal is preferred by the rape convict who was tried in Sessions Case No. 20/1995 by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, for offences under Ss. 366, 376 read with S. 34 of the IPC. 2. In nutshell, the prosecution story is as under : The appellant (original accused No. 1) is the brother of the original accused No. 3 who is married to original accused No. 2. Original accused No. 2 and 3 were residing in the Railway quarters at Nevli since original accused No. 2 is working as Porter at Nevli Railway Station in district Latur. The Appellant was residing with the accused Nos. 2 and 3 at Nevli. One Vishwanath Mhaske was also working as Gangman and having his quarter nearby the quarter of the accused No. 2 Vishwanath has daughter by name Nutan who was studying in 7th standard. On 12-10-1994 she went to the school at Borgaon which is about 1 1/2 kms away from Nevli. Usually she ought to have returned home by 5-30 p.m. on that day. She did not return home. Vishwanath and...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Abdul Kadar @ Raj Mohd Kadar Badshah and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1997
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)820
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this appeal preferred under section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant impugns the judgment and order dated 20th December, 1982, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 444 of 1980, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under section 143, 147, 148 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. in the alternative under section 302 r/w section 34 I.P.C.2. We may straight away mention that the appeal against respondents No. 1 and 9 namely Abdul Kadar @ Raj Mohd. Kadar Badshah and Abdul Halim s/o Abdul Gani has been dismissed for non-prosecution vide the Order dated 24-2-1986 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. We may also mention that it is not disputed at the Bar that the respondents No. 3 and 8 namely Karunakaran @ Karan and Munna are dead and consequently in view of the provisions contained in section 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code the appeal against them abates.In other words this appeal only survive...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Harish Textiles Engineers Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)LC308Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara against a captioned order. In the captioned order the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that (a) the Department did not file any appeal against the decision of the Asstt. Collector regarding the limitation issue and (b) the Department has filed the appeal on merits making a new ground. The Collector has held that respondent is entitled to claim the discount given by them and benefit obtained by them under Notification 120/75, dated 30-4-1975 cannot be denied to them.2. The Department has come up in appeal against the said order. The ld.Departmental Representative Shri Gurnani has invited our attention to the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise against which the impugned order has been passed. In the said order, the Asstt.Collector has withdrawn the show cause notice as it was barred by the limitation. Against the said order he fairly concedes that no appeal was filed bef...
Wooltex Associates Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT245Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On the basis of information that various consignments imported by a particular vessel, declared to be wool waste in the Bills of Lading and the Import General Manifest, actually contained substantial portion of synthetic waste, the officers examining these consignments. Among these was the consignment of 21 bales consigned to the appellant. Examination of this consignment, showed that 13 bales out of 21 contained synthetic fabrics and 8 bales contained wool waste. Notice was therefore issued proposing confiscation of the consignment and imposition of penalty.After considering the cause shown and hearing the appellant, the Collector has passed orders confiscating the goods and imposing a penalty on the appellant. This appeal is against imposition of penalty.2. The advocate for the appellant contends that appellant had ordered wool waste and not any synthetic material. There was no allegation or conspiracy between the appellant and the supplier in the UK; the appellant had not filed ...
Hakikullah Haji Rahimutullah and Others Vs. the Maharashtra Housing an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Bom239; 1997(4)BomCR208; 1997(1)MhLj756
ORDER1. The fact rise to this petition are rather peculiar. The petitioners are the owner of certain structures standing on survey No. 93 (part) situate at Govandi, Mumbai. The petitioners were served with notices dated 1st Sept. 1994 under Section 66 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development act, 1976 ('Act' for short) by the Competent Authority No.1 Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). It seems that the notices were issued on a complaint made by the Executive Engineer Relocation, Rajiv Gandi Zopadpatti Sudhar and Niwara Prakalp (RGZSNP) complaining that the petitioners have unauthorisedly occupied the land belonging to RGZSNP by erecting temporary structures on survey No. 93 (part). 2. Pursuant to the notices under section 66, the petitioner appeared before the then Competent Authority No. 1 Shri B.T. Sawant who now stands promoted as the Appellate Officer No. 1. The petitioner filed their written statement denying the allegations contained it notice. The...
Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Memorial Education Society, Nagpur Vs. Nagpur U ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Bom375; 1997(2)MhLj276
ORDERS. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Heard Counsel for the Parties.2. The petitioner-Institution is affiliated to the Nagpur university and is running B.S.W Degree Course ever since 1994. The petitioner had directly approached the Director of Social Welfare and the State of Maharashtra, by its letter dated 20-9-1994 seeking permission to start M.S.W. Degree Course which is a Master Degree. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner did not approach the Nagpur University for the purpose of starting M.S.W. Degree Course, but had directly approached the Director of Social Welfare and the State of Maharastra. Ultimately the state of Maharashtra, by its letter dated 4-9-1996, had granted permission to the petitioner to start M.S.W. Course for the academic year 1996-97 subject to various conditions, specifically mentioning therein that the petitioner should seek permission from the University to start the said M.S.W. Course.3. Thereafter the University of N...
Dinshaw Jal Muncherjee Vs. Air India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR434; [1997(75)FLR916]; (1997)ILLJ1100Bom; 1997(1)MhLj683
1. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the first respondent Air India Limited in refusing to permit the petitioner to voluntarily retire under Regulation 46(II) of the Air India Services Regulations is arbitrary and ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner is also seeking a writ of mandamus to strike down the orders of the Director of Operation of Air India Ltd., dated October 10/17, 1996 and October 11, 1996 and to direct the respondents to give to the petitioner his full retirement dues including gratuity, provident fund and other service benefits including free tickets. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent No. 1 in the year 1976 as first officer/co-pilot. Thereafter, the petitioner was given further training on a variety of air crafts and in due course was promoted as a commander in the respondents' fleet. The employees of the respondent No. 1 Air India are governed by the Air India Employ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »