Mumbai Court November 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.
B.D. Steel and Traders Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR52; 1998(103)ELT220(Bom)
ORDER1. On request of learned Counsel for the respective parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a SSI unit and holder of Central Excise licence No. J12/CH. 72/46/94 and manufacturer of Iron and Steel Products falling under Chapter Heading Nos. 72 and 73 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and availing the exemption benefit as per the Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993. According to the petitioner, it being a SSI unit is entitled for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 1/93 and availed deemed Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 7.85 lacs from November, 1994 to April, 1995 on re-rolling iron and steel ingots used as an input under Rule 57G(2) in pursuance of Government of India (Ministry of Finance) Order No. TS/36/94-TRU, dated 1-3-1994. 3. The Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, Jalna, however, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner requiring it to show cause why inadmissible deemed c...
Rajesh Jagiamba Awasthi Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR766
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for possession of 180.70 grams of charasunder section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution had examined four witnesses in support of the charge. The said witnesses are P.W. 1 Mahesh M. Kasissare, Jr. Scientific Officer in Directorate of foods and Drugs Administration, who had analysed the samples which were forwarded to him; P.W. 2 the panch witness Nitin Kesarkar in whose presence the search of the appellant was effected and the charas in question was recovered; P.W. 3 Manohar Joshi, Scientific Assistant, to whom the charas was forwarded after recovery by the Investigating Officer and who, in turn, forwarded the charas to the Food and Drugs. Laboratory for analysis and the Investigating Officer P.S.I. Naresh Mhamal, P.W. 4 who had accompanied P.S.I. Thorat to the flea market at Anjuna.2. The trial Judge accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the appellant for posse...
Parekh Market Permises Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Padmanabh Builders and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR313; (1998)100BOMLR1
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit with the following prayers:(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that there is valid, subsisting and binding agreement inter alia to convey the said property described in Ex. 'A' hereto and the building standing thereon in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendants No. 1 to 4 are bound and liable to specifically perform their part of the said agreement and to comply with the statutory obligations under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963.(b) The Defendants No. 1 to 4 may be ordered and decreed to execute conveyance of the said plot more particularly described in Exhibit 'A' hereto wilt the building standing thereon in favour of the plaintiff and be directed to do all such requisite, acts, deeds, things and matters and execute and sign all necessary and requisite documents, papers, forms, applications, deeds, things etc. for effectually vesting the said property described in Ex. 'A' hereto with...
Shyam Vs. Iqubal Ahamad Alamkhan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: 1(1998)ACC542
V.S. Shirpurkar, J.1. Heard finally with the consent of parties:2. The applicant herein not with an accident on 15.6.1989 and sustained various injuries. He claims that he was in the hospital, after the accident, and was an indoor-patient till 4.9.1989 and subsequently was referred to the Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, and was there till 10.1.1990. He claimed that during this period, he was not moving and was confined to bed. The applicant thereafter, after collecting the documents, etc., and after getting legal advice, filed a claim petition on 7.7.1990. That was clearly beyond the period of twelve months which was an outer limit as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 ('the Act of 1988' for short).However, this claim petition was accompanied with by an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition, and that application was separately registered as Misc. Civil Application No. 97 of 1990. This application has been rejected b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›