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.
Yudhvir Singh S/O Col. B.S. Sisodiya Vs. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marath ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR423; 1998(2)BomCR435
ORDERN.P. Chapalgaonker, J. 1. Heard Shri S.B. Talekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.C. Bora, learned Counsel for the respondents University. 2. This petition challenges Ordinance No. 105 Clause (iv) framed by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad inasmuch as it lays down that the benefit of revaluation is only be given in cases wherein the difference between the marks obtained at the first valuation and the revaluation vary by more than 10% of the maximum marks allotted to that paper or subject. The petitioner, who appeared for B.E. (Electronics) examination with seat No. 221624, secured 29 marks in the examination held in December 1996. He applied for revaluation and in the revaluation, he secured 38 marks. The paper for the subject of Electronics was of 100 maximum marks. As per the Ordinance No. 105{iv), the University authorities declined to give the benefit of the added marks to the petitioner since only nine marks were added which were less th...
Mrs. Nalini Abraham and Another Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR592; 1998(2)BomCR518
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, it is proposed to dispose of the same by common judgment. First Appeal No. 21 of 1990 is filed by appellant Mrs. Nalini Abraham who is defendant No. 2 and partner of defendant No. 1. First Appeal No. 22 of 1990 has been filed by defendant No. 4 who is guarantor for cash credit facility.2. The respondent Bank (hereinafter referred as plaintiff) had filed a suit for recovery of money against the appellants (hereinafter referred as defendants Nos. 2 and 4, respectively) and others. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm duly registered of which defendants No. 2 and 3 are partners and defendant No. 4 is the Manager of the said firm. The partners of the said firm, namely defendants Nos. 2 and 3, were granted cash credit facility for the purpose of business upto a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 executed demand promissory note and also hypothecated telephone parts and ra...
Sheshrao Chandrabhan Dakhore Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR188
ORDERA.D. Mane, J.1. On request of learned Counsel for the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. This petition is filed by prisoner No. C-1791, who is undergoing sentence oflife imprisonment in Open Jail at Paithan, for his premature release.3. The petitioner was convicted under section 302 and 307 of the Indian PenalCode in the Sessions Case No. 163 of 1981 by the learned Sessions Judge, Yeotmal.He was sentenced to death in the first instance but on his appeal and reference madeby the learned Sessions Judge, Yeotmat, the High Court, while confirming the conviction converted death sentence into life, by its judgment and order dated 17-8-1982.4. The petitioner's mother made an application and that was treated as CriminalWrit Petition No. 459 of 1995, for premature release of the petitioner on his completion of actual 14 years of imprisonment. On 8-11-1995 that petition came to be rejected, since it was found that prisoner had not undergone substantive imprisonmentof 14 years. Th...
Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT293Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellants manufacture Polyisobutylene and had obtained permission for the Department to obtain the raw material C4 Raffinate (Liquified Petroleum Gas, LPG) classified under Item 11AA CET/2711.19 CETA from IPCL claiming exemption under Notification 276/67. Procedure laid down under Chapter X of Central Excise Rules was also followed as prescribed in the condition to the notification. The department issued L6 licence to the appellants for obtaining C4 Raffinate (LPG) from IPCL without payment of duty under Notification 276/67 as per an agreement entered into with IPCL. Polyisobutelene is manufactured by polymerisation of olefins consisting essentially of isobutelene and this is the C4 Raffinate stream supplied by IPCL. This fuel is pumped into the reactor. After undergoing all the various stages of reaction to obtain isobutylene only 60% of the stream gets reacted and 40% remains unreacted. The appellants had an arrangement by which the unreacted stream was stored in separate tanks ...
Mukund Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1997
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT479Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants as contractors of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Rourkela Steel Plant in Orissa, have been entrusted with the setting up of gas cleaning plant as part of Basic Oxygen Furnace shop. For this purpose the appellants entered into an agreement and signed a contract on 27-2-1993 with M/s. Davy Mckee (Stockton) Ltd. by which M/s. Davy were to provide basic design and drawing and also supervise the detailed engineering erection and commissioning of the gas cleaning plant in India and were also to undertake training of personnel abroad.They were also to render technical services and undertake guarantee test for the efficient functioning of the gas cleaning plant. The fabrication, manufacture etc. are to be done in India with indigenous goods based on the designs supplied by M/s. Davy.2. In pursuance of the agreement a consignment of Design and Engineering Drawings were imported at Mumbai Customs, Air Cargo Complex for which Bill of Entry was filed on 20-8-1996. The Asstt. Comm...
Collector of Customs Vs. Deccan Polypacks Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT398Tri(Mum.)bai
M/s. Deccan Polypacks Limited, the respondents imported 51 MTs of Polypropylene grade LYONDELL 31S3A at an invoice price of US $ 950 PMT CIF from M/s. Hagen & Miller, U.S.A. and presented B/E No. 1932, dated 3-4-1990 (IGM/Line 649/136) for its clearance. The indent for the said goods was placed on 20-12-1990. However, the said price was not found acceptable under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, in view of the contemporaneous import of 51 MTs of exactly same grade, i.e. grade 31S3A at an invoice price of US $ 1,010 PMT CIF against indent dated 29-12-1990 vide B/E No. 7095, dated 19-4-1991. The case was subsequently decided by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Group 2B) vide Order No. S/26-Val-117/91 (2B) who ordered the enhancement of invoice value from US $ 950 PMT CIF to US/1010 PMT CIF under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, in view of contemporary import at a higher price.2. The respondents filed an appeal against this order before Collector of Customs (Appeals)...
Aask Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT99Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Pune captioned above. The appellants manufacture Nuts and Bolts, they supplied certain quantities of bolts to a customer M/s. Kirloskar. These were rejected and returned by the customer because on defects and the customers sent it back to the appellants on payment of duty thereon, as if it is their [own] manufacture in terms of Rule 57F(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.The appellants removed the defects cleared them again on payment of duty after availing Modvat credit on returned bolts. The Department held that since on the returned goods no process of manufacture was undertaken the appellants cannot take Modvat credit of the duty paid thereon.2. Shri V.S. Khanwalker, the ld. Consultant for the appellants submitted that the case is covered by the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Hirsch Watch Straps Pvt. Ltd. 1997 (91) E.L.T. 174 ...
Bhagirathibai Surji Bhanushali and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2209
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellants have challenged the Judgment and Order dated 30-11-1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 182 of 1997, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :- (i) Under Section 304-B r/w 34, IPC to 7 years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. R.I. for 2 months. (ii) Under Section 306 r/w 34, IPC to 3 years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. R.I. for 2 months. (iii) Under Section 498-A, IPC r/w 34, IPC to 3 years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. R.I. for 2 months. Their substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In short, the prosecution case is as under :- The appellants Shambhulal Bhanushali and Himmatlal Bhanushali are real brothers. The appellant-Smt. Bhagirathibai Bhanushali is their mother. At the time of the incident, they were living in Bhanushali House, IIT Bazar Gate, Bombay-76. The deceased Dhanvanti was the dau...
Shalikram Shivram Khobragade and Others Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Bom255; 1998(2)ALLMR333; 1998(2)BomCR525; (1998)1BOMLR672; 1998(1)MhLj206
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent, rule heard forthwith.2. The petitioners were Directors of respondent No. 4 Society which is a Cooperative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the 'Act'). The elections to the Society were held on 3-12-1995 and thirteen members were elected out of which petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 are some of the elected members and petitioners Nos. 7 to 9 are the co-opted members. It seems that the action of the Board of Directors in co-opting two members in place of two other members who had been disqualified, was enquired into the respondent No. 2. By order dated 19-9-1996, respondent No. 2 directed the members of the Managing Committee that they were to invite the disqualified members to attend the meetings of the Managing Committee as according to respondent No. 2, they were not disqualified in law, failing which action under section 78 of the Act would be taken against the office bearers of the Society. A show ...
Bhagirathibai Surji Bhanushali and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)507
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 30-11-1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 182 of 1987, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :--(i) Under section 304-B read with 34, Indian Penal Code to 7 years R.I. and topay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. R.I. for 2 months. (ii) Under section 306 read with 34, Indian Penal Code to 3 years R.I. and to paya fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. R.I. for 2 months. (iii) Under section 498-A, Indian Pena! Code read with 34, Indian Penal Code to 3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. R.I. for 2 months. Their substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. In short, the prosecution case is as under :---The appellants Shambhulal Bhanushali and Himmatlal Bhanushali are real brothers. The appellant-Smt. Bhagirathibai Bhanushali is their mother. At the time of the incident, they were living in ...