Mumbai Court March 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.
Baramati Grape Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR352; 1997(3)BomCR190
M.B. Shah, C.J.1. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are engaged in the manufacture, inter alia, of potable liquor and have their distilleries situated at various places. They manufacture the liquor under the licenses issued to them under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Prohibition Act') and carry on manufacturing activity. By filing the present petitions, they are challenging the legality and constitutional validity of (1) Maharashtra Ordinance No. XII of 1996 dated 4th September, 1996, (ii) Notification No. ARM/1096/21/2/EXE. dated 13th September 1996, (iii) Maharashtra Potable Liquor (Fixation of Maximum Retail Prices) Rules, 1996 (M.R.P. Rules) and (iv) Circular No. CSE 1096/ARM/ (96-97) I (E) dated 30th October, 1996.2. By the impugned Ordinance, Explanation to section 105 of the Prohibition Act is substituted. Section 105 and the substituted explanation reads as under :'105(1) An excise duty or countervailing duty...
Bajrang Alias Hanumant Tatyaba Kakade and anr. Vs. Smt. Babubai W/O Ba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR363; 1997(4)BomCR462
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. This second appeal is at the instance of original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1986 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge. Solapur whereby the said Court modified the judgment and decree passed on 24-3-1983 by the Civil Judge, Malsiras. 2. The only question that is canvassed during the course of arguments in this second appeal and which requires answer is :- Whether the original defendant No. 1 is bona fide purchaser of the disputed land comprising of gat No. 846 and 856 situate at Tabulwadi, Taluka Malsiras from original defendants Nos. 3 to 6. 3. The aforesaid question arises from the facts which briefly can be summarised as under:-Jagannath Tukaram was the original owner of the land comprising of gat No. 846 and 856 situate at Tabulwali, Taluka Malsiras and the house property details of which are given in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaint. He died on 23-4-59 leaving behind Babulal (original plaintiff No. 1), Vishranti (...
Sadashiv Sonaba Ingale Vs. Anandibai Savalaram Chavan, (Through L.Rs.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR334
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are the heirs and legal representatives of the original petitioner Sadashiv, challenge the judgment and order dated 12th August 1982 passed by the Assistant Judge, Satara, in Civil Appeal No. 125/1981. By that judgment, the Appellate Court under the Bombay Rent Act allowed the appeal filed by the landlady Anandibai and set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara, dated 26.2.1981 in Civil Suit No. 205/1977, dismissing the suit for possession of the suit premises filed by the landlady Anandibai. The Appellate Court has decreed the suit by his judgment impugned in the petition.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the original petitioner Sadashiv was tenant of 4 khans of House No. 72A/1, MalharPeth, Satara, of which the original landlady Anandibai was the owner. Anandibai purchased the suit house by registered sale deed dated 25.5.1...
Jagannath Narayan Tigdi and ors. Vs. Smt. Alzira Xavier Lobo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR71
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This is a petition filed by the original plaintiff-landlord of whom the present petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives. The original petitioner Jagannath died during the pendency of this petition on 5th of June, 1996. Civil Application No. 1270 of 1997 was filed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Jagannath on record and I have, by an order separately passed on that Civil Application, allowed that Civil Application.2. The suit premises are situate in House No. 126-E, which comprises of 6 rooms, at Worlikoliwada, Prabhadevi, Bombay. The respondent is tenant in relation to 3 rooms in this house, namely, Rooms 'D', 'E' and 'F'. The original petitioner filed civil suit, being R.A.E, Suit No. 1186/1979 before the Small Causes Court at Bombay seeking a decree of possession against the respondent-tenant on the ground that he needs the premises bona fide for accommodating the members of his joint family. In the suit filed by the original petition...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Panchmahal Steel Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT203Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue in this case relates to availment of deemed Modvat credit under Rule 57G(2). The Asstt. Commissioner denied the Modvat credit on certain items of input holding that deemed credit on these inputs cannot be granted because they were purchased from dealers of bazar scrap and such were dearly recognisable as non-duty paid. Deemed credit is available only on those inputs which are deemed to be duty paid and purchased from the market.2. We have heard Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. DR for the appellant Commissioner and Shri Willingdon Christian, the ld. counsel for the respondents. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the respondents arises out of the categorisation of the various inputs on which deemed credit has been taken. The question to find out is, which category is truly recognisable as non duty paid, in which case, the respondents will not be eligible to take deemed credit there of.3. The other aspect is whether the department can establish that such scrap c...
Weldkar Laminaters P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)(70)LC817Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants herein were availing of proforma credit under Rule 56-A prior to 1.3.1986 and they had opted for operating under modvat credit scheme after 1.3.1986 under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. Differential duty was paid by the supplier of the input and the appellants wanted to take credit of the differential duty which was not allowed by the lower authority who held that Sub-rule (9) under Rule 56A was against such grant of credit. This Rule laid down that nothing contained in the Rules relating to proforma credit shall apply to the manufacturer availing Modvat credit under Rule 57A. The orders of the Assistant Commissioner were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) leading to the present appeal.2. We have heard Shri Willingdon Christian, the Id. counsel for the appellants and Shri Gurdeep Singh, the Id. DR for the respondent. The matter is no more res Integra. It is covered by the decision in the case of Hematic Motors (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune 19...
N.D. Oza and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT412Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of suspension of the Custom House Agent's licence issued to the appellant.2. The Bombay Port Trust wrote to the Commissioner in April, 1995 reporting an alleged incident of unauthorised removal of import cargo for the clearance of which the appellant was acting as C.H.A. It appears that the goods were cleared by a person who was not an employee of the appellant. Subsequently the department conducted investigations which were hampered to some extent because the appellant's partner was available only in June, 1995, apparently because he was recovering from an accident and his wife was suffering from cancer (from which she ultimately died). The Custom House conducted investigations in June and July and passed orders suspending the licence in October, 1995. The notice proposing cancellation of the licence was issued to the appellant a year later in October, 1996. The appellant in his reply dated 31st December said that although an inquiry officer has bee...
Arham Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT898Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing the ld. Counsel for the Applicants Shri Willingdon Christian and the ld. DR Shri Gurdeep Singh, we condone the delay in filing the supplementary of appeal No. E/275/97-Bom., considering the fact that the delay is on account of fulfilling the procedural requirement of separate appeal and also having regard to the fact that the main combined appeal had been filed within prescribed time limit.2. All these applications arise out of a common individual Order-in-Original No. 41/MP/96, dated 28-8-1996. The applications seek waiver of total duty demand of Rs. 18,35,935/- on man-made processed fabrics from the applicants M/s. Roop Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. and also for the various amounts of personal penalty imposed on the other applicants listed below :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Stay Application & Applicants/Appellants Penalty Appeal No. Rs.-----------------------------------------------------------------...
Rameshchandra Bhogilal Parikh Vs. the Collector of Dadra and Nagar Hav ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR283; 1997(3)BomCR235
B.P. Saraf, J.1. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by the order of the Land Acquisition Officer, Silvassa of 8th July,. 1992 rejecting the application of the petitioner under section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ('Act') for reference to the Court as being barred by limitation. According to the petitioner, his application under section 18(1) of the Act had been made by him within the statutory period of limitation specified in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act. 2. The case of the petitioner is that though the award was made on 27th November, 1989, the petitioner came to know of the making of the same from the Mamlatdar sometime in the second week of January, 1991. The petitioner thereupon approached the office of the Mamlatdar and obtained an ordinary copy of the award on 18th January, 1991. Thereupon, the petitioner applied for certified copy of the award on 1st February, 1991, which was supplied to the him on 4th April, 1991. Thereafter, the pe...
Sylvester and Co. Vs. their Workman Through Transport and Dock Workers ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR585
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks to challenge the Award dated 1-9-1989 being Part-I Award as also Part-II Award dated 1-2-1991 in Reference CGIT-2/55 of 1987.2. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows:-3. Petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of clearing and forwarding, exporters and importers, shipping and also as commission agents. R.G. Gaikwad - workman (Respondent No. 1) was employed as dock clerk on and from 1-10-1978. Respondent No. 1 was required to go to Docks in connection with the work of clearing and forwarding. He was appointed as a dock clerk. His services were terminated with effect from July 1, 1986. He, thereafter, approached the Union which requested the Company to reinstate the workman but the Company refused to do so and, therefore, the Union raised an industrial dispute under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal by way of Reference CGIT-2/55 of 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »