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.
Machsons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT302Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against a common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) captioned above by which the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of two Orders-in-Original passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur Divn., Bombay-III Commissionerate. By one of these orders dated 15-3-1991 the Asstt. Commissioner approved the classification list No. 1/90-91 with effect from 3-4-1990 and 2/90-91 with effect from same day rejecting the claim for exemption under Notification 175/1986 which was sought by the Appellants. By his order dated 27-5-1991, the Asstt. Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 6,91,658.82 which was raised on the basis of his order dated 15-3-1991.It is seen that the appellants were filing the classification list and on scrutiny thereof the Asstt. Commissioner noticed that they had not correctly computed the value of the clearances during the preceding financial year for the purpose of notification. They were manufacturers of gold potassium cyanide and in c...
Swastik Rubber Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT665Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants filed a classification list for their goods called activated charcoal coated non-woven fabrics under Heading 5603 of CETA, the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division IV, Pune passed an order dated 12-10-1995 classifying the product under sub-heading 5907.90. The Asstt. Commissioner found on visual examination of the sample and the technical details furnished by the appellants that the classification thereof will be more appropriately under Heading 59.07 for which another ground was that the basic fabric was obtained from M/s. Tata Textiles, Mumbai. This order of the Asstt.Commissioner was challenged in appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held in the impugned order that Note 1 to Chapter 59 of CETA provided that for the purposes of this Chapter, expression "textile fabrics" applies only to the woven fabrics of Chapters 50 to 55 and the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the Asstt. Commissioner has considered the product as woven because i...
Shaym S/O Fatechand Shende and Another Vs. Alka W/O Vinod Ganvir and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)BomCR530
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Admit. Heard by consent of the advocates for the parties.2. By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the application tiled by the applicants under Order 1, Rule 10 for joining them as parties to the Civil Suit No. RCS 642/96. The trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the applicants are not necessary parties for the effective decision in the matter.3. Perusal of the plaint in the suit discloses that the non-applicant No. 1 has filed the suit for declaration that the Map submitted by her to the non-applicant No. 2 on 30-12-1991 was deemed to have been sanctioned by the Corporation and the construction has been done in accordance with the said plan and therefore the construction is not unauthorised. It is the case of the applicants that proceedings were initiated by the non-applicant No. 2 against the non-applicant No. 1 pursuant to the complaint by the applicant regarding the unauthorised construction carried out by the non-...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sherally Meherally and Sons.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: [1998]230ITR120(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the 'Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of s. 187 would not be applicable ?' 2. The material facts of the case relevant for deciding the controversy in the above question, briefly stated, are as follows : By a deed of partnership dt. 12th May, 1967. Hussainally Sherally and Roshanali Sherali agreed to carry on the business of firewood and timber in the profits and losses in the ratio of 65 : 35. On 27th June, 1977, Hussainally Sherally died. As a result, the firm stood dissolved. On 5th September, 1977, the sole surviving partner Roshanali Sherali entered into a fresh deed of partnership with the widow of Hussainally Sherally, Smt. Kalsumbai, to carry on the said business in partnership with her. For the ...
Foolchand Nanhelal Parwar Vs. Shabbir HussaIn S/O Mulla Akbar Ali Bohr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR782; 1998(2)BomCR766; 1998(1)MhLj429
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Admit, Heard by consent of the advocates for the parties.2. This revision application is against the order dated 22-9-1997 passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur rejecting the application filed by the applicant for joining him as the defendant in R.C.S. No. 645/96. The applicant had filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code for joining him as the defendant in the suit on the ground that he is the owner of the suit property and therefore the non-applicant No. 1 is not entitled to seek eviction of the non-applicant No. 2 from the suit premises claiming the latter to be a tenant of the former. It is seen from the record that the non-applicant No, 1 has filed the said R.C.S. No. 645/96 for eviction of the non-applicant No. 2 on the ground that the latter is the tenant of the former and has defaulted in payment of rent. There also appears to be a dispute between the applicant on the one side and the non-applicant...
Shyam Fatechand Shende and Another Vs. Alka W/O Vinod Ganvir and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)BomCR763; 1998(1)MhLj410
ORDERR.M.S. Khandepakar, J.1. Admit. Heard by consent of the advocate for the parties.2. By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the applicants under Order 1, Rule 10 for joining them as parties to the Civil Suit No. R.C.S. 642/96. The trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the applicants are not necessary parties for the effective decision in the matter.3. Perusal of the plaint in the suit discloses that the non-applicant No. 1 has filed the suit (or declaration that the Map submitted by her to the non-applicant No. 2 on 30-12-1991 was deemed to have been sanctioned by the Corporation and the construction has been done in accordance with the said plan and therefore the construction is not unauthorised. It is the case of the applicants that proceedings were initiated by the non-applicant No. 2 against the non-applicant No. 1 pursuant to the complaint by the applicant regarding the unauthorised construction carried out by the non...
Shri Kisan Paraji Nimase and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR27; 1998(2)BomCR816
ORDERA.D. Mane, J.1. This petition arises out of rejection of petitioner's request to issue a certificate as Project Affected person.2. The petitioner is an agriculturist and he possesses lands situated at village Karjune Khare, Taluka Nagar. The petitioner submits that total 5 acres and 27 gunthas lands out of Survey Nos. 241/3, 241/5, 241/7, 237/2 and 258/14 were acquired for the defence project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 1, Ahmednagar, issued a certificate on 2-6-1997 stating that the petitioner's land was acquired for K.K. Ranges Project. The petitioner, relying upon the said certificate, Exhibit 'A' annexed with the petition, submits that the respondent No. 3 -District Rehabilitation Officer - is empowered to issue the certificate as Project Affected person. Petitioner's application, however, was rejected for issuance of certificate as Project Affected person by communication received by him from the Tahsildar on 14-8-1994 informing that in the record of rights the ...
Annabhau SaThe Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. the State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR39; 1998(2)BomCR821
ORDERA.D. Mane, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Matters are taken up for final hearing by consent.2. All the petitioners are educational societies running primary schools and they have challenged the order withdrawing recognition of respective schools- The said order is purportedly passed under Rule 109(2) of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the order withdrawing the recognition of the respective schools has been signed by the Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Nanded and a perusal of the said order goes to show that it has been passed in pursuance of a letter dated 10th July 1996 issued by the Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. The learned Counsel, therefore, submit that the order withdrawing the recognition is without jurisdiction and hence a nullity in the eyes of law.3. The respondent - Deputy Director of Education has filed affidavit in reply and justified the order of withdrawing the r...
Atmaram Mahadu More Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR201
ORDERB.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. B.R. Varma for the petitioner and Shri A.M. Kanade, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri A.M. Kanade, learned Public Prosecutor waives notice for the State. With the consent of parties, matter is taken for final hearing.2. The short point that arises (or consideration is whether the offence of cheating as defined under section 415 of I.P.C. embraces cases in which no transfer of property is occasioned by the deception.3. In brief facts giving rise to this criminal application are as under:4. The prosecutrix is a divorced woman. The prosecutrix was given in marriage at Badoda, tq. Chopda, Dist., Jalgoan. However, prosecutrix and her husband could not pull on well. The said marriage was completely broken and ended in divorce.5. After divorce, the prosecutrix started residing with her mother at village Pargoan. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused, who is petitioner in the present appl...
Shri S.B. Yadav Vs. Mohamed HussaIn Farah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)649
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. This is an appeal against acquittal of the 1st respondent filed by Shri S.B. Yadav, Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue, Intelligence, Bombay through the Public Prosecutor for Union of India.2. The 1st respondent was acquitted for offence under section 8(c) read with sections 21, 23, 28 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act and under section 135(1)(a) read with 135(1)(ii) of Customs Act. By the impugned judgment passed in N.D.P.S, Special Case No. 214/88 and N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 828/88 dated 11th September, 1995 by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Under N.D.P.S.) for Greater Bombay.3. Originally there were 3 accused against whom the charges were framed under the above sections. Accused, Md. Ahmed Asir and Farah Glow Ahmed since absconded, against Accused No. 2 only the trial Court proceeded with the trial. Accused No. 2 Md. Hussain Farah is the 1 st respondent in this appeal. After trial, the 1st respondent was found not guilty and acqu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »