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.
Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. Vs. Cmmr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT413Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of air compressors. It manufactured and cleared on payment of duty in December, 1987 a compressor to a buyer in Indore. In May, 1989, the buyer returned the compressor for repairs. The appellant intimated the Department of the receipt of the compressor. After carrying out processes on it, which are stated to have been amounted only to repair, it cleared the compressor in August of that year. The clearance was on payment of duty, which was paid under protest and such protest being recorded on the gate passes under which duty was paid. In May, 1990 it claimed refund of the duty paid in August, 1989 on the ground that the processes that were carried out on the compressor were only repairs and did not amount to manufacture. The Assistant Collector, whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), rejected the claim on the ground that the compressor was received in the appellant's factory after more than a year after it was cleared on payment of...
Cce Vs. Softsule Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC310Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of Patent and Proprietary Medicines and enjoying benefit of Notification No. 245/83 in respect of some of the preparations, filed price list No. 13/89 in respect of a particular preparation "KARVOL" claiming deduction of discount of 30% from the maximum retail price. Notification No. 245/83 granted exemption of Central Excise duty in excess of the amount of duty calculated on the basis of the value of the medicines arrived at after allowing a discount of 15% on the retail price of the medicines specified in the price list referred to in paragraph 19 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979.2. The third proviso to the Notification stated that the exemption shall be allowed only if the manufacturer claims exemption under this Notification in respect of all the medicines cleared by him, the retail price of which is specified in the said price list. Evidently, the appellant did not claim benefit of exemption under Notification No.245/83 in regard...
M/S. New Bharat Engineering Works Vs. M/S. Jagson International Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR188; 1998(2)BomCR808
ORDERDr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the defendants praying that the leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to the plaintiffs to file this suit in this Court, be revoked, and necessary appropriate order be passed for return/rejection of the plaint. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for reliefs praying inter alia for declaration that the plaintiff was and continues to be the owner of the generator-set described at Exhibit A to the plaint, and that, defendants be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 1,78,81,225/- as per the particulars of claim (Exhibit G) to the plaint, together withinterest ai the rate specified in prayer Clause (b) of the plaint, and that, the defendants be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs, compensation at the rate of Rs. 3.5 lakhs per month from the date of the suit till the date of the return of the said generator-set and that, the defendants be ordered and decreed to forthwi...
Bastimal S/O Lalchand Shirsath Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR614; 1998(3)BomCR707; [1998(79)FLR499]; 1998(2)MhLj556
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner was a conductor with about 10 years service in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation which is a State undertaking of the Government of Maharashtra. On 1-12-1989 he was a conductor on the bus running between Aurangabad-Shahada and the bus had its night halt at Shahada. At about 10 a.m. the watchman on duty in Shahada Depot heard some commotion in the bus and on rushing to the bus he found that the petitioner and the driver of that bus were shouting loudly. The Depot Manager was called and when the watchman went to the petitioner and the driver in the said bus, the petitioner allegedly stated that he had consumed liquor and therefore, they were both sent to the Police Station at Shahada. The Police referred both the petitioner and the driver with him for medical examination and about 11-30 p.m. the medical Officer conducted their medical examination on the same day. Charge-sheet dated 13-2-1990 was issued to the petitioner alleging act...
Ganpati Munjaji Renge Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR686; 1998(4)BomCR511; 1998(2)MhLj845
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Writ Petition No. 799/90 arises out of the order dated 14-12-1989 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad setting aside its own order dated 24-6-1989 in Revision No. 96/B/1988/P and also setting aside the orders passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Sub-Division Selu and Deputy Collector, Selu. The land admeasuring about 23 acres 38 gunthas in Survey No. 590 situated at Parbhani belonged to one Shri Prabhakarrao Rajaram Taklikar and the petitioner entered into an agreement on 3-5-1957 with the said Prabhakarrao for cultivation of the said land admeasuring 23 acres 38 gunthas along with the well in Survey No. 590 on tenancy basis for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/-. Subsequently the said land was cultivated by the petitioner and his elder brother Raghorao @ Raghoo. Both the brothers continued to cultivate the said land jointly and in accordance with the provisions of section 38 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 they became the j...
Rafiq Abdul Karim Merchant Vs. Shri Rajendra Singh, Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1998
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)472; 1998CriLJ2732; 1998(2)MhLj496
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who is the brother of the detenue Arif Abdul Karim Merchant has impugned the detention order dated 17-1-1997 clamped against the detenue by respondent No. 1, detaining the detenue under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974, (52 of 1974), hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act.2. The prejudicial activities of the detenue necessitating the passing of the detention order are spelt out in the grounds of detention, annexed as annexure 'B' to the petition. The detention order as well as the grounds of detention were contemporaneously served on the detenue on 13-10-1995 while he was undergoing preventive detention in another case. 3. In short the grounds of detention read thus :---(a) On 6-6-96 officers of the Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Mumbai, on the basis of specific information intercepted at about 1.15 a.m. one ...
Smt. Solgabai Sunil Pawar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1998
Reported in: 1998ACJ1109; 1998BomCR(Cri)562; (1999)1BOMLR449; 1998CriLJ1505; 1998(2)MhLj410
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. The petitioner Solgabai Sunil Pawar has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for holding an enquiry in respect of the death of the petitioner's husband Sunil Pawar in police custody. The said Sunil Pawar was arrested by A.S.I. Shantilal Kumawat of Vasind Outpost under Police Station Shahapur in Thane District in connection with the investigation of an offence of robbery and detained in the police custody. On 17th June 1997 the petitioner was informed by the police that her husband Sunil Pawar had committed suicide in police custody at 9.30 p.m. on 16th June 1997 by strangulating himself and asked her to take possession of the body of her deceased husband. The allegation made by the petitioner is that her husband had died in the police custody not due to suicide but it is a murder committed by the police by subjecting him to third degree torture and in order to hide their crime the police had hurriedly got done the inquest panchanama an...
Comunidade of Saligao through Its attorney Shri Albino D'Souza Vs. Mha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR401; 1998(3)BomCR155
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This appeal arises from the Award dated 22-7-1991, passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 100/86, by the District Judge, at Panaji. The Government had acquired an area of 145 sq. metres of land of the property bearing Survey No. 17/1 of Village Saligao. Undisputedly, the land was owned by the appellant herein. However, the respondents claim right of tenancy to the same and, as such, claimed share in the compensation. In view of the dispute regarding apportionment on the compensation, the matter was referred to the District Court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed an issue relating to the claim of tenancy by the respondents herein and after hearing the parties, decided the same in favour of the rests by the impugned Award.2. Shri M.B. D'Costa, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant while assailing, the impugned Award submitted that the Reference Court had no jurisdiction to deci...
Mohanlal Khetaram Jangid Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR771; (1998)1BOMLR647
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. These two appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 29th June, 1994, passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 695 of 1991 convicting accused Nos. 1 and 2 under section 21 read with section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('N.D.P.S. Act' for short) and sentencing them to suffer R.I for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for six months.2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows:On 4th August, 1991 the Narcotic Cell, M.I.D.C. Unit, Mumbai, received information that one Sharma i.e. accused No. 1 and one Mohanlal i.e. accused No. 2 were likely to come in the same afternoon opposite Ellora Guest House, Borivli (E), Mumbai, for Narcotic transactions. Immediately this information was noted down in book maintained in the Narcotic Cell as per Ex. 15A. Police Constable Naik was directed to call two persons to act as panchas. After the panchas wer...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Supreme Construction
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR28
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J. 1. This petition under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the Award dated 29th December, 1995 of the sole Arbitrator Shir S.K. Ahuja, Chief Engineer, copy of the Award has been attached to the petition at Exhibit-A. A contract was entered into between the respondents and the petitioner for the construction of telephone exchange building at Ulhasnagar. As per agreement No. 14/PT(B-V)/1981-82 dated 26th November, 1981 entered into between the parties, the respondents were required to complete the construction work within 18 months. The work commenced on 11th December, 1981 and was actually completed on 31st December, 1983. The respondents applied for extension of time and the same were granted under Condition No. 5 of the general conditions of contract forming part of the contract. The final bill was prepared as per the terms and conditions of the contract and an amount of the final bill was paid to the respondents. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »