Mumbai Court October 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.
Ajit Chotelal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1997
Reported in: I(1999)DMC86
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 29.8.1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 605 of 1987, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter:(i) Under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code to three years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. to suffer 6 months RI; (ii) Under Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code, to seven years RI; and (iii) Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code to seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo 6 months RI. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under:The deceased Alka was the daughter of Kantilal Shah, PW 6. Her first marriage from which she had a daughter broke down. On 22.12.1986, she married the appellant whose first marriage too, had failed. He had a son from his first wife. After the marriage, the appellant went to his native place along with Alka a...
indsu Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT385Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant was a unit located in the Kandla Free Trade Zone and had imported a consignment of parts of washing machine which were imported in order to make these machines which it was licensed to do.It did not utilise these goods in the manufacture of finished product for more than a year, as required by Notification 77/80. The goods were therefore seized and notice was issued demanding duty, proposing confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. The Additional Collector did not accept the appellant's contention that it could not use the goods for manufacture as they were not of the kind required goods of the usage not having been sent by the supplier, and he ordered confiscation of goods with option to redeem on payment of fine. He also ordered that, whether the goods redeemed or not the appellant had to pay duty in view of the provisions of the notification. He imposed a penalty on the appellant. Hence this appeal.2. We are unable to see how the liability to duty arise...
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Reliance Commercial Corpn.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)65ITD496(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 19-9-1994 for the assessment year 1989-90. The grounds taken read as follows :- "In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in coming to the conclusion that provisions of section 154 cannot be invoked as the issue being contentious requiring a decision after application of mind without appreciating the facts that assessee has adopted transitional previous year consisting the period from 23-10-1987 to 31-3-1989 (17 months) and even rent receipts shown in the statement in respect of properties known as "Tulsiani Chambers" and "Maker Chambers" is for the period of 17 months reflected in the Profit and Loss Account of the year in question. The learned CIT (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of adopting the rent receipts as Business Income and adopted the same income to be assessed as Income from Other Sources...
ibrahim Amirsaheb Kokani and Another Vs. Babu Kasam Shaikh and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR324; 1998(2)BomCR81; 1998(1)MhLj100
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution on India has been filed with a prayer for quashing the orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.A. 24 of 1983 dated 29th December, 1983 confirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nasik Sub-Division, Nasik, dated 27th September, 1982 and for restoration of the order of the Tahasildar dated 26th December, 1981 in Tenancy Case No. 28/1973.2. The facts as stated by the petitioner may be noticed. The petitioners are the owners of the agricultural lands comprising the Survey Numbers mentioned below:--VillageS.No.AreaH.A.Asstt.Rs. P.Trees etc.Vadala, Nasik, Tal. & Dist. Nasik.18/21-41(P.K. 0-05)8-93Mango1019/21-03( P.K. 0-03)5-69Mango12Sandalwood1Well119/40-371-87Mango10480-654-12Tamarind1Bor1Well1Mango10Kasam Hussain Musalman was the predecessor-in-title of the respondents No. 1 to 10. He was the tenant on the suit land. In Tenancy Case No. 76 of 1959, the petit...
Shamrao Chandrappa Kamble Vs. Deputy Engineer (B. and C.)panchayat Sam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR629; 1998(2)BomCR640; 1998(1)MhLj109
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer for quashing the order passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 9 of 1982 dated 31st March, 1986 wherein the complaint filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4th March, 1982 has been dismissed. Thefacts of the present case would be an apt illustration of the phrase 'Justice delayed is justice denied' but for the fact that the impugned order had been stayed at the admission stage itself.2. The petitioner who is a Class-IV employee of the first respondent joined the service on 26th April, 1968 as a Mile Mazdoor in the Building and Communication Department of the Panchayat Samiti, Miraj. He was made permanent from 1st April, 1974 and assigned duty of a Mile Mazdoor on the Kavathepiran-Dudhagaon section of the Road, falling within the jurisdiction of the Miraj Panchayat Samiti, Sangli. He continued to work in the said section for more than 14 years w...
Motiram Sona Bhole Vs. Accountant General, Mumbai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1997
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR57]
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent Rule is called out for hearing and heard. 2. The petitioner retired from the service of Railway Police under the State Government with effect from 1st May 1985 and it is his grievance that at the time of settling his general provident fund account a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been wrongfully withheld. The first Respondent, Accountant General, noticed that the petitioner had been given a non-refundable advance of Rs. 500/- by the Deputy I.G.P. and R.CID, M.S., Pune on 29th September 1973 for additions, alterations and repairs of his house. The first instalment of Rs. 250/- was paid to him vide Pune Treasury V.R. No. 683 of 4/74. Since the debit of the second instalment of the advance paid to the petitioner had not appeared in his G.P.F. account, nor was their any order of cancellation of the second instalment of non-refundable advance, the Accountant General withheld an amount of Rs. 2,000/- while authorising final payment to the ...
Shri S.A. Rahim, Since Deceased Vs. Shidu Laxman Ramoshi Since Decease ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR608; 1998(3)BomCR1; 1998(1)MhLj58
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. The interesting point of law raised in this petition is as to whether an order dropping the proceeding under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the statement of the so called tenant to the effect that he is not a tenant on the suit land, can be equated to a declaration to the effect that the purchase has been declared to be ineffective.2. It appears from the facts as narrated by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.R.T.') in Revision Application No. M.R.T. N.S. XII.1/ 78 (T.N.C. B. 359/78) dated 8th February, 1980 that the respondent was wrongly recorded as a tenant in the Record of Rights with regard to the suit lands. When proceedings under section 32-G of the Act were initiated, the respondents made a statement to the effect that he is wrongly shown as a tenant in the Record of Rights. It was, therefore, prayed by him that his name be removed from the othe...
Edozie Boniface Umeora Vs. Shri B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)672
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The appellant challenges in this appeal the judgment and order dated 27th June 1994, passed by the Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act), for Greater Bombay, in N.D.P.S. Case No. 85 of 1989 convicting and sentencing him to suffer (1) R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.25 lakhs and in default to suffer R.I. for 3 years under section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, (2) under section 28 of the N.D.P.S. Act he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default to suffer R.I. for 3 years, and (3) under section 135(i)(a) of the Customs Act he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for 6 months. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. According to the prosecution when the appellant, a Nigerian national, was about to board an Ethiopian Airlines Flight No. ET-611 for Adis Ababa on 13-9-1988 at about 1.30 a.m. he was intercepted at the Sahar In...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Kashinath Dagadu Sanap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1997
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR449; 1978MhLJ339
Deshpande, J.1. The plaintiff (respondent herein) was employed as a junior accountant in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer at Vyara in Dhulia district. In 1951, he was drawing in all Rs. 200 per month in the scale of Rs. 100-8-140, inclusive of allowances etc. A charge-sheet came to be framed against him on September 12, 1951 and after inquiry, he was dismissed from, service by an order dated July 15, 1954. The plaintiff then initiated Suit No. 316 of 1956 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhulia, (1) for declaration that the order of dismissal was void being in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution, as also (2) for the arrears of salary up to the date of the suit. This suit was decreed on December 30, 1957 and the decree was confirmed in appeal on August 31, 1959 and also in Second Appeal on September 26, 1965 by this Court. It is common ground that he was thereafter reinstated on January 10, 1966. The plaintiff then filed the present suit on December ...
Commr. of Central Excise Vs. Diamond TIn Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT397Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the decision of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, wherein he had not added the value of the P.P. Caps to the value of the container for arriving at the assessable value of the container under the Central Excise Act.2. It is the argument of the department that was revealed in the grounds of appeal is that the agreement between the purchasers itself was to produce the container P.P. Caps and the consideration has been passed on between the parties. It was contended by the assessee before the original authority, viz. the Assistant Collector that they had purchased P.P. Caps required by the customer and supplied them direct to the customers. The P.P. Caps, it was further contended by the assessee, were not in their factory, but sent directly to the customers from the place of its manufacture. The contentions of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the party was maintaining sa...