Mumbai Court August 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.
Graphite Vicarb India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1997
Reported in: 1997(96)ELT25(Bom)
A.A. Desai, J. 1. The authority rejected the Application for the claim of refund, on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation. The learned Counsel for Petitioners made submission that though the duty was paid on 24-9-1983, final assessment was made on 27-2-1985 and as such, the application for refund dated 24-7-1985 is within the period of limitation. He placed reliance on Section 27, particularly Clause 'A' and made a submission that date of final assessment would be the date for the purposes of computing period of limitation. The submission is erroneous as clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 27 is not available, since the payment of duty was not in pursuance of the final assessment, dated 27-2-1985. Undisputedly, the payment was made much earlier as on 24-9-1983. As such, the application was not within the period of limitation as envisaged by Section 27. 2. Even otherwise, the final assessment has not in any way indicated that the payment of duty in 198...
Todi Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1997
Reported in: 1997LC807(Bombay)
A.A. Desai, J.1. This Petition is directed against the recovery certificate dated 30th July, 1984 issued by the Customs Authorities. The main ground of challenge is that the export was carried within the period extended by the authorities under bond and as such, issuing of such certificate is wholly without any justification. For adjudication of question as involved, the facts relevant are thus : 2. The Petitioner is a manufacturer of Gas Mantles. For the purposes they are required certain chemicals to be imported. On 22nd September, 1981, the exemption certificate was granted. The Petitioner executed a bond for the compliance of the condition necessary for availing benefit of exemption. One of the stipulations was that total export of Rs. 69,61,000 to be made within a period of six months. 3. Undisputedly, as the Petitioner could not fulfil the condition as per terms of the bond, period was extended up to 30.9.1982. Even then, the Petitioner failed to comply and could not complete the...
Prakash Damodar Dhorda and ors. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1997
Reported in: 1998(97)ELT245(Bom)
Shri V.P. Tipnis, J.1. These eight Writ Petitions are filed by persons carrying their avocation at Dubai and Middle East. Each one of them is holder of a valid Indian passport. The petitioners have averred that Govt. of India by notification bearing no. 171 of 1994 issued on 30.9.1994 which came into force on 1st of November 1994, exempted gold when imported into India by an eligible passenger from the customs duty as mentioned in the notification. According to the petitioners, the eligible passenger does not require any licence or permit but he has only to satisfy the conditions laid down under the notification. All the petitioners came to Mumbai from Dubai by Emirates Flight No. 500 on 31st August, 1996 and each one of them brought about 42 gold bars weighing 4900 gms. Upon the landing, each one of them declared that they possess gold of the aforesaid quantity to the proper Officer of the customs channel designated to assess such gold imported. The officers examined the gold and asse...
Indian Silk Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Gamprasad R. Jaiswal and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ116Bom
S.N. Variava, J. 1. Allowed to amend Memo of Appeal by taking additional ground (W) as set out in draft handed to Court and marked X. Amendment to be carried out within one week from today. This is an Appeal filed against the Order dated June 23, 1997. The facts briefly stated are :- 2. In Reference (IDA) No. 768 of 1995 the workmen had claimed that their services were wrongly terminated. The company took up the contention that they were all temporary workmen who had not worked for more than three to six months. The matters appeared on Board of the Tribunal on April 16, 1996. They were adjourned to May 25, 1996. Thereafter for one or other reasons they were adjourned on a number of occasions. Ultimately the matters reached hearing on September 12, 1996. The Appellants and their Advocates were absent. The evidence of one workman was recorded and matters were adjourned to September 13, 1996 for cross examination. On September 13, 1996 also the Appellants and their Advocates were absent. ...
Vidya Vikas Samiti, Paratwada and Another Vs. Presiding Officer, Schoo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR346; 1998(2)BomCR769; 1998(1)MhLj462
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall govern the Writ Petitions Nos. 35241 95, 3547/95, 1198/96, 1946/96, 1947/96 and 225/96. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.2. Firstly a short history :The petitioner in the Writ Petitions Nos. 3524/95, 3547/95, 1198/96, 1946/96 and 1947/96 is the managing body called 'Vidya Vikas Samiti', Paratwada (hereinafter referred to as 'The Management'). This society was running a Junior College to which a school was also attached. It so happened that one Kunte who was an erstwhile Lecturer in 'History' and was working as a Junior College Lecturer died somewhere in the year 1993. Before that the respondent No. 2 Shri Bonde was already working as an Assistant Teacher in the Middle School which is attached to that Junior College. Shri Bonde is M.A. IIIrd Class in Economics and also B.Ed. As such he could not have taught the subject of Economics in Junior College. He thereafter acquired the qualification of M.A. IIn...
Ajit Bhimrao Mali and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR385
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 30-3-1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No. 122 of 1987, convicting and sentencing them, in the manner slated hereinafter :-i) Under section 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. to five years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year; ii) Under section 147 I.P.C.) A consolidated sentence of 6 months iii) Under section 148 I.P.C.) R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- i.d. to suffer R.I. 3months.It needs to be mentioned that nine other co-accused persons, who were put up for trial, along with the appellants, have been acquitted vide the impugned judgment.2. At the very outset, I would like to observe that the learned trial Judge erred in awarding a consolidated sentence to the appellants, for offences under section 147 and 148 I.P.C. The law is that on each count, a separate sentence should be awarded, to the guilty accused.3. In short,...
Haribai @ Hirabai Narayan Gaikwad Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR568; 1998BomCR(Cri)201; I(1998)DMC94
ORDERA.B. Palkar, J.1. The appellant Haribai @ Hirabai Narayan Gaikwad original accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1993 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Satara has filed this appeal challenging her conviction and consequent sentence passed against her by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara by his judgment and order dated 14-2-1997. The appellant who is referred to hereinafter as the accused No. 1 was prosecuted alongwith two other accused i.e. her son Sanjay accused No. 2 aged 26 years and her daughter Manisha accused No. 3 aged 19 years. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted whereas the present accused No. 1 appellant was convicted for offences punishable under sections 498A, 306, 304B of I.P.C. and for offence under section 498A of I.PC. she was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one month; for offence under section 306 of I.P.C. she was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of R...
The Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. Vs. Parmeshwar Mittal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)BomCR25
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. This petition is filed under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, 1996 for referring the parties to arbitration for resolution of disputes and differences that have arisen between them.2. By an agreement dated 23rd December, 1986 between the petitioner and the respondents and two memoranda of understanding, the parties agreed to carry on the business in partnership in the firm name and style of M/s. Gas Property Developers as a single venture undertaking upon the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. The agreement contains an arbitration Clause and the same is reproduced hereunder :---'23. If at anytime a dispute shall arise among the parties hereto concerning the interpretation of this agreement or anything contained herein, or in connection therewith or any of the rights, duties, obligations or liabilities of the parties hereunder, or with respect to the performance thereof, such dispute shall, failing mutual agreement to settle it ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: [1998]230ITR88(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. In IT Ref. No. 18 of 1992 made under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the aircraft owned by the assessee falls under item E(1) of the Depreciation Table?' In IT Ref. No. 26 of 1992, the following question has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in granting the depreciation at 40 per cent on the aircraft jointly owned by the assessee holding that this item of machinery falls under item E(1) of Part I of Appendix I of the IT Rules, 1962, when in fact the said machinery falls under item D(1) 'Aeroplane-Aircraft' of Part I of Appendix I, entitled to depreciation at 30 per cent only ?' Both these references pertain to the very same assessee. IT Ref. No. 18 of 1992 relates to the ...
Vidya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Others Vs. Medical Council of India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR469; 1998(3)BomCR386; (1998)1BOMLR389; 1998(3)MhLj164
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and also a Public Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The said society has been established with a view to impart education and cater to the educational needs of the Pupils for Vidarbha region. The petitioner Society established the N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Sciences and Research and Smt. Lata Mangeshkar Hospital at Digdoh Hills, Hingna Road, Nagpur and applied to the State of Maharashtra for granting permission to establish and administer a Medical College on 'no grant-in-aid' basis at Nagpur. The State Government by its Resolution dated 22-6-1990 granted permission to petitioner society to establish and administer a Medical College at Nagpur from the academic year 1990-91 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »