Mumbai Court January 1998 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.
Sound Health Giagnostic Centre Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC296Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Order dated 7.2.1995 passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay is under challenge in this appeal.2. M/s. Pie Medical Pvt. Ltd., Bombay imported a consignment of Ultrasound Scanner model SC 400 of Holland origin and cleared the goods on payment of duty on the declared value and under OGL. The importer sold the goods to the present appellant. Subsequently, the Preventive Wing seized the equipment from the appellant. Show cause notice was issued alleging misdeclaration of value and other offences and proposing demand of differential duty on the basis of correct value, confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. Ultimately, the Collector passed the impugned order confirming all the proposals in the show cause notice. He refrained from imposing penalty on the appellant, though he imposed penalty on the original importer.3. The show cause notice placed reliance on statements recorded during investigation as well as certain documents. Nevertheless, copies of the doc...
Sundeep Metal Works and anr. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC297Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals are directed against the common order passed by the Collector (Appeals), upholding two separate orders passed by the Assistant Collector rejecting the refund claims preferred by each of the appellants.2. The appellant in appeal No. E/4301 /89-A, engaged in the manufacture of conductors for supply to Maharashtra State Electricity Board was filing price lists from time to time and clearing the goods on approved prices. The contract price prior to 14.3.1987 was Rs. 3,787.23 per K.Mtr. length. On 14.3.1987, the appellant filed revised price list No.165/87 in Part II declaring the price as Rs. 4,478.18. It is explained that this was done after moving the Electricity Board for enhancement of price due to increase in raw-material prices and under the hope that the Electricity Board would agree for enhancement, as suggested. The price list being approved, the appellant was clearing conductors on payment of duty at the approved higher price, though receiving only the old price...
Hindustan Construction Corporation Vs. Mazagon Dock Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)BomCR490
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This petition, has been filed under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with a prayer for setting aside the Award dated 10th February, 1997 made by the sole Arbitrator being Award No. 117 of 1997.2. The petitioners are M/s. Hindustan Construction Corporation, a registered partnership firm of Engineers and Contractors having their office at 53, Sindhi Society, C.S.T. Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071. The respondents are M/s. Mazagon Dock Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking and having their office at Mazagaon Dock, Mumbai-400 010. Certain disputes had arisen between the petitioners and the respondents in respect of the work of construction of workshop shed at Nhava Yard for the respondents. Under the Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the said disputes were referred to the Arbitration of one Shri G.G. Archik as sole Arbitrator, pursuant to the order dated 12-2-1988 of this Court. This order was passed in A...
Mrs. Margarida Gomes Pereira Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Bom327; 1998(3)ALLMR682; 1998(3)BomCR87; (1998)2BOMLR286; 1998(2)MhLj346
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. Land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for respondent No. 3, as Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 vide section No. 4 Notification bearing No. 22/97/83-RD dated 20th August 1983 published in Government Gazette, Series II, No. 22 dated 1st September 1983. Section 6 Notification bearing No. 22/97/83/RD dated 10th December 19855 was published in the Government Gazette dated 30th January 1986. The notices in the newspaper were published on 14th December 1985.2. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 70/1986 challenging the said notification in which Rule was issued and interim relief to the extent that the possession should not be taken by the respondents, was granted pending disposal of the said petition. The interim relief was granted on 24th April 1986. The said writ petition was dismissed on 22nd April 1987 and rule was discharged.3. The petitioner then filed present writ petition on the ground that...
Shri Peter Fernandes (Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs Vs. Smt. Luizi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR704; 1998(3)BomCR720
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The substantial question of law which is sought to be raised in this second appeal is that can a Civil Court entertain the suit filed by a mundkar against another mundkar from the same property making grievance of extension of the house by the another to be an encroachment over the dwelling houseof the former by the latter in contravention of the provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter called as 'the Mundkar Act') and grant the relief of injunction, either mandatory or permanent?2. The facts, in brief, relevant for the decision are that the appellant claiming tobe a mundkar in respect of a house situated in a property bearing Survey No. 36/7 inthe village of Sanvordem, filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction against therespondents for demolition of a structure stated to have been erected by therespondents at a distance of 2 metres from the house of the appellant and, therefore,complaining of violatio...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Rakmaji Aher and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR601; 1998(3)BomCR355; (1998)1BOMLR326; 1998(2)MhLj135
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. This petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the Award dt. 4-2-1995 passed by the II Labour Court at Ahmednagar in Reference IDA No. 60/1992, by which the petitioner Department of the Maharashtra State has been directed to reinstate respondent employee, with continuity in service and backwages w.e.f. 14-6-1990. 2. The respondent was appointed on daily wages as Unskilled labour in Kukadi Irrigation Project, Division No. 2, Narayangaon w.e.f. 22-5-1979 and he continued to be employed as such till 24-3-1985 and thereafter, he did not report for duty. On or about 16-4-1990, the respondent, for the first time, made an application for re-employment and there was no response. By his letter dt. 25-6-1990, he was informed by the Executive Engineer, Kukadi Irrigation Project, Division No. 2, Narayangaon, that as there was no work available in the said Project, he could not be re-employed. The respondent, thereafter, submitted a Notic...
K.K. Suresh Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary, Secretariat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR663; 1998(3)BomCR717
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This revision application challenges the order dated 20th June 1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem in Special Civil Suit No. 84/94/A. By the impugned order the trial Court has appointed one S.M. Nadkarni, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Colvale as the sole arbitrator to enter the reference pursuant to the dispute referred for arbitration by the trial Court by its order dated 9th September 1996. Before appointing the said Superintending Engineer as the Sole Arbitrator, the trial Court had called and invited the parties to the proceedings to propose the name of the Arbitrator and, accordingly, the petitioner as well as the respondents had submitted three names each. Upon hearing the parties, the trial Court passed the impugned order.2. While assailing the impugned order Shri Mascarenhas, learned advocateappearing for the petitioner, submitted that the trial Court had acted with materialirregularity in discarding the objec...
Batliboi and Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)67ITD397(Mum.)
1. The appeal of the assessee, for the asst. yr. 1985-86, is directed against the order dt. 20th August, 1990, of CIT(A), Mumbai, Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. Ground Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, which are reproduced hereunder, are dismissed as not pressed. "2. The learned CIT(A), Bombay, erred in reckoning the expenses on repairs, payment of rent, rates and taxes in respect of residential flats occupied by the Directors and employees of the appellant as perquisite within the meaning of s. 40A(5) and confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,88,104 in case of directors and Rs. 3,86,569 in case of employees in place of disallowance under s. 40(c) at Rs. 82,085 and under s. 40A(5) at Rs. 7,825 as Annexure 'B' and 'C'. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-I, Bombay, erred in disallowing under s. 43B of the IT Act, the sales-tax liability of Rs. 22,78,693. 4. The learned CIT(A)-I, Bombay, erred in confirming disallowance of the follow...
Ramanand S/O. Nanakram Ladda and Another Vs. Dr. Kacharulal S/O. Amola ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR596; 1998(3)BomCR334
ORDERA.D. Mane, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith on the request of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners are the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 19 of 1996 filed by the respondent original plaintiff for recovery of damages on the allegation that the defendant published an article which contained imputations against the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff has suffered extreme injury to his reputation and profession. The suit was filed on 8-1-1996. After filing the suit, the plaintiff has filed his private complaint under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the defendants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Majalgaon. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued process against the defendants in Criminal Case No. 96 of 1996. 3. It appears that the plaintiff led some evidence but the defendants at the same time applied for stay of the suit since according to the defendants simultaneous prosecution of the...
Ms. Sophia Gulam Mohammed Bham Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR446; 1999CriLJ2140
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. Through filing this writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the sister of the detenu, by name, Mr. Bham Faisal Gulam Mohammed, detained by the order of detention passed vide No. SPL. 3(A)/PSA/89 dated 24-2-1998 by the 2nd respondent. Mr. G.S. Sandhu -, Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention), Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) seeks to challenge the same for illegality and impropriety alleged. The order of detention, grounds of detention and copies of the documents relied on by the detaining authority totalling 57 in number, all the three shown in Annexures 'A ', 'B' and 'C', respectively of the compilation, were seemed to have been served upon the detenu on 24-2-1998, on the same day simultaneously.2. The prejudicial activities, grounded in the grounds of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »