Mumbai Court February 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.
Sarjerao Sahadeo Gaikwad and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)517; 1997CriLJ3839
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Since both these matters arise out of the same incident and a common impugned Judgment, we propose, disposing them off by one Judgment. 2. Both these appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order, dated 11-5-1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 83 of 1983. Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1984 has been preferred by Sarjerao Sahadeo Gaikwad and Babasaheb Keshav Patil against their convictions and sentences. These two appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :- Sarjerao Gaikwad : Under section 304, Part II, IPC to five years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. R.I. for one year. Babasaheb Patil : i) Under section 307, IPC to three years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for one year; ii) Under section 326, IPC to one year RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for six months; and iii) Under section 323, IPC to one month's R.I. and to pay a fine...
Chandrakant Narayan Kshirsagar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)26
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.9.1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 166 of 1983, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life u/s 302 I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under:- The deceased Madhukar Narayan Kshirsagar was the brother of the appellant. According to the two eye witnesses of the incident namely, Ramakant Pandharinath Ubhe (P.W.1) and Bharat Digambar Nijampurkar (P.W. 2) at about 4-15 p.m. on 8-4-1983, the deceased and the appellant came on the street near public latrine, on Ganesh Ganpat Road, Kasba Peth, quarreling over real estate. The appellant told the deceased that he had maintained and protected the estate and asked whether he understood this. Thereupon the deceased asked him to take back the properly from Jadhav. The appellant slapped the deceased. Ramakant Ubhe and Bharat Nijampurkar who were talking at a nea...
Lellis R.P. Ozorio Vs. Santan Anthony Gomes
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: II(1997)DMC267
R.K. Batta, J.1. The respondent had filed a suit for divorce on grounds of adultery and abandonment of conjugal domicile for a period of more than three years. The ground of adultery was given up in the Trial Court itself and the only ground pressed into service for divorce was complete abandonment of conjugal domicile for a period of three years.2. On behalf of the respondent, his Power of Attorney namely his mother was examined besides one more witness. The appellant examined herself in the proceedings. The Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent had established that the appellant had abandoned conjugal domicile from the year 1987. He, therefore, decreed the suit and dissolved the marriage by granting divorce. This judgment is challenged by the appellant.3. Learned Advocate Mr. F. Reis, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted before me that the marriage in question took place in Bombay on 1.11.1980; that initially the parties stayed at Bombay and in the year 19...
Telco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exicse
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT452Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing Shri J. Krishnaswamy, Divisional Manager (Finance) of the appellant and Shri V.K. Puri, Id. SDR, we find that the issue involved in this case is covered by a Larger Bench decision in the case of Tata Engg. & Locomotive Co. v. C.C. Excise -1996 (87) E.L.T. 157. The dispute arouse because of denial of Modvat credit in respect of additional payment of duty made on the inputs by the manufacturer of the goods subsequent to the clearance on gate pass during the period when Rule 57E, Central Excise Rules did not specifically provide for the same. Rule 57E as originally framed provided for variation of credit under the circumstances where variation of credit resulted in refund to the manufacturer; by its subsequent amendment on 15-4-1987 Rule 57E was recast to provide for variation of credit due to variation of duty resulting in refund or recovery of more duty from the manufacturer. The conflicting decisions of the Benches of the Tribunal were on the retrospectivity of this ...
Dipika Engineering Co. Vs. Commissioner of C Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)LC587Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Since the facts require for considering the disposal of the appeal are identical to those to be considered for disposal of the stay application we have decided, with the consent of both sides, to dispose of the appeal itself, after granting waiver of duty and penalty and after hearing both the sides.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of flexible tubing. It was availing, at the relevant time, the exemption under Notification 1/93. This Notification was not available (as provided in Para 4) to goods on which the manufacturer affixes the brand or trade name of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption.Following a visit to the appellant's factory the departmental officers came to the conclusion that the appellant was using the brand name "Flexican" by affixing it on the goods in question. The department's inquiry showed that this brand name was registered in the name of M/s.Zaverchand Gaekwad Ltd. Notice was, therefore, issued proposing recovery of duty...
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT213Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Commissioner, Mumbai-III rendered on 10-9-1996 in Order 212/96-Commr. whereby he disallowed credit of Mod-vat amounting to Rs. 4,20,65,399/- on three inputs furnace oil, low sulphur heavy stock and light diesel oil which were used in the manufacture of steam which in turn was used in the manufacture of declared final product. By the said order he also levied a penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the C. Excise Rules.2. The appellants are, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of various final products such as polyester, polymer chips, Polyester Filament yarn, partially origented yarn and other products.3. The appellants have availed of the benefit of the Modvat credit on the inputs like furnace oil, low sulphur heavy stock and light diesel oil in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules for the period from November, 1994 to April, 1995. The aforesaid three inputs are used in the manufacture of fi...
Kissan Products Ltd. Vs. Cc/Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)(70)LC581Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against a decision of the Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex Sahar Bombay made in Order No.S/10-3050/86 ACC (I) dt. 25th November, 1986 whereby he ordered confiscation of the goods and demanded a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- from the appellants who had filed a bond for the said amount.2. The appellants purchased from one Diamond Exporter by name Kiritlal Kalidas Diamond Exports on a high seas basis goods concentrated terpeneless Lemon Oil. The said diamond exporters were given additional licences under the Import Policy for the year 1978-79. The goods were imported by the licencee which were sold to the appellants as stated earlier on high seas basis, The licence No. was P/W/3099127/C/WX/96/D-78 dt. 3.9,1985. The appellants filed the Bill of entry on 11.2.1996 indicating inter alia that the goods were imported from Brussels, Belgium. At the time of import the goods formed part of Appendix 2 Part B of the Import Policy dealing with a list of r...
Mrs. Manju Sanghi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)64ITD74(Mum.)
1. This appeal of the appellant, for the assessment year 1990-91, is directed against the order dated 15-3-1995 of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals)-IX, Mumbai, Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. The first ground of appeal is relating to determination of the value of unquoted shares. Assessee had disclosed the value of the said shares on the basis on yield method. The Assessing Officer determined the value as per Schedule III of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The learned counsel for the assessee conceded that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1944] 207 ITR 1/73 Taxman 33, the value of the shares is to be determined in accordance with Rule 1D. He, however, pointed out that the Assessing Officer has committed a mistake while determining the value of the shares as per Rule 1D. Inviting our attention to Rule 1D. Schedule III, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that after determination of the valu...
Sheikh Ashraf Abdul Kader Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3031
S.S. Parkar, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay on 16th October, 1992 convicting the appellant under Section 21 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default to suffer further RI for one year. The appellant was further convicted by the aforesaid order for offences punishable under Section 22 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer further RI for one year. The appellant was also convicted by the aforesaid order for the offence punishable under Section 23 read with Section 28 of the NDPS Act and for offence under Sections 135(1)(a) read with Section 135(i) and (ii) of the Customs Act and under Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. However, no sentences were awarded to appellant on these counts. The substantive s...
Biddle Sawyer Ltd. Vs. Chemical Employees' Union and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ986Bom
1. By this writ petition, the Company seeks to challenge Judgment and Order passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 1017 of 1994. By the impugned order, the above complaint filed by the Union particularly came to be allowed. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court declared that the Company had engaged i in unfair labour practices under Item 5 of Schedule 11 of the Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'the said Act, 1971') 2. Mr. Koehar the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Company contended that the Industrial Court erred in the present matter, in coming to the conclusion that the Company was guilty of unfair labour practice. Mr. Kochar invited my attention to the correspondence and submitted that in view of the contents of the letters addressed by the President of the Union and in view of the allegations made therein, it was impossible for the Company to enter into even negotiations on Charter of Demands sub...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »