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.
Eskay Narrow Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT315Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is against the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Airport, Mumbai whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order dated 18-10-1995 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs classifying the Ultrasonic Lace Sewing Machine under sub-heading 8452.29 of Customs Tariff Act as against sub-heading 8479.89 CTA. The Commissioner has also directed the AC to once again consider the merits of the case.2. The ld. Counsel Shri V.S. Nankani for the applicant submits that Commissioner (Appeals) has given a clear finding on the Review Application before him by the Department that the classification of the goods under Heading 84.52 decided by the AC is not correct but that it should be correctly classifiable under Heading 84.79 of CTA. Having done so, the ld. Counsel pleads that the fresh adjudication ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) will be a duplication of effort since the appeal against the impugned order on classification is pending befo...
Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha Vs. Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR21; 1998(2)BomCR411; [1998(79)FLR619]; 1998(1)MhLj854
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr. Aditya Chitale appears for respondent No. 1 and waives service. Mr. S.M. Naik appears for respondent No. 2 and waives service on his behalf. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are formal parties and, therefore, service of rule on the said respondents is dispensed with. By consent rule is taken up Board for final hearing immediately.2. The petitioner, Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred as 'Utkarsha Sabha') is a trade union recognised under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'MRTU & PULP Act') and claiming to be operating in the respondent No. 2 M/s. Parte Products Limited (for short 'the Company'). The Utkarsha Sabha was granted statutory recognition in the undertakings of the company in the year 1984. The 1st respondent, Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari. Mahasangh (hereinafter referred as 'Karmachari Mahasangh) is a trade union registered under ...
Sangeeta Piyush Raj Vs. Piyush Chaturbhuj Raj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR32; 1998(3)BomCR207; II(1998)DMC443
ORDERM.B. Shah, C.J.1. After considering the various decisions cited at the hearing of the Notice of Motion, by order dated 17th January, 1997, Variava, J., referred to the Division Bench the following two questions for determination:--'1. Whether in proceedings under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions andMaintenance Act, the Court can grant interim maintenance? 2. Whether if matrimonial proceedings are pending between the parties then an application for interim maintenance must be made only to the Family Court under the provisions of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act?'2. With regard to the first question, after considering the various decisions, the Division Bench of this Court (V.P. Tipnis & Mrs. R.R Desai, JJ.) by judgment and order dated (16th and 17th December, 1997 in Appeal No. 14 of 1997) has arrived at the conclusion that, in a suit filed under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the Court has jurisdiction and power to pass appropriate interim and ad...
Mr. Caetan Figueiredo Vs. the State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR393
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. On 8-8-1994, at 2.00 p.m., at Caora, the accused/appellant assaulted Simao Vaz, aged about 78 years, with 'Kati' (chopper) and caused his death and on the same day, at the same time and at the same place, he also assaulted one Livramenta Vaz causing her serious injuries. Case under section 302, I.P.C. as also section 307, I.P.C. came to be registered against the accused/appellant who faced trial vide Sessions Case No. 1 of 1995 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Panaji, North Goa, Vide Judgment dated 4th June, 1997, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused/appellant for offence under section 302 I.P.C.. He acquitted him of charge under section 307 I.P.C., but convicted him of offence under section 326 I.P.C. By way of sentence under section 302 I.P.C., life imprisonment is awarded with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo 6 months R.I. and for offence under section 326 I.P.C. it has been awarded 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, t...
Ganpat S/O Sudam Dhabe Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR567
ORDERD. D. Sinha, J. 1. The present criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant/ original accused No. 1 against the judgment and order dated 26-11-1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1993, whereby the original accused No. 1, the present appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for one year.2. It will be appropriate for us to consider the few facts of the case which have resulted in prosecution of the present appellant for the offences charged before we appreciate the prosecution evidence on record.3. That deceased Manglabai was the wife of the appellant/accused No. 1 and was working in Rural Hospital as Staff Nurse at Hingoli. Manglabai was married to the present appellant/original accused No. 1 about 2 1/2 years prior to t...
Bajaj Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT291Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The miscellaneous application for early hearing is allowed and since the matter lies in a short compass, with the consent of both parties we took up the appeal itself for disposal.2. The appellant filed a shipping bill sometime in July, 1995 for export of dyed printed polyester viscose blended fabrics 95.5% under DEEC scheme. They declared in the shipping bill that polyester filament yarn of 75 DNR and polyester viscose yarn of 1.4. DNR were used in warp and weft respectively of the fabric. The goods were examined in August, 1995 and samples were drawn and sent for test. The test revealed that the percentage of polyester filament yarn used in the export product was far higher than the polyester yarn declared by the party. On being put to them they admitted this to be so and they also agreed to export the goods under free shipping bill without claiming drawback. The matter came to be adjudicated by the Additional Collector of Customs who ordered confiscation of the goods covered by ...
Orlando Vicente Bossue Faria Vs. Joaquina Falco
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR674; 1998(3)BomCR157; 1998(2)MhLj591
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. This second appeal arises from the judgment and Decree passed by the first Appellate Court on 5-7-1994, whereby the first Appellate Court has set aside the consent Decree passed by the trial Court on 10-12-1990. Only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the decree of the trial Court for alleged breach of Order 20, Rule 5-A of C.P.C. ignoring the provisions contained in section 96(3) of C.P.C. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant herein filed a Regular Civil Suit bearing No. 105/90, which was fixed for filing of the written statement on 22-10-1990 before the trial Court. On the said day, consent terms were placed on record by the appellant herein which, however, were not acceptable to the respondent, as it is apparent from the order recorded by the trial Court on the said consent terms. The matter was accordingly adjourned and fixed for written statement of the...
Smt. Savita Bandodkar and Others Vs. Shri Edmundo Rodrigues and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR236; 1998(5)BomCR838
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. By the present petition the petitioners challenge the orders passed by the respondents 4 and 5 rejecting the claim of the petitioners formundkarship in respect of house No. 932 situated at Benaulim Accona, Salcete, Goa by impugned orders dated 11th August, 1988 and 18th April, 1995 respectively.2. The facts in brief are that the respondents 1 and 2 herein and Smt. Elvita Rosita Ozario Rodrigues, Shri Iraquinho Rodrigues and Smt. Prazy C. Rodrigues filed a suit against the petitioners for their eviction from the suit house being Regular Civil Suit No. 29/83 in the Civil Court at Margao wherein the petitioners in their written statement claimed to be the mundkars in respect of the said suit house. It was the case of the said respondents that they are the owners of the suit house which is situated in the property belonging to the respondent No. 3 herein. On account of issue of mundkarship being raised by the petitioners, the same was referred to the Mamlatda...
Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Meena Vijay Khetan and anr.,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1998
Reported in: [2000]101CompCas51(Bom)
S.S. Nijjar, J. 1. This order will dispose of Arbitration Petitions Nos. 281, 282 and 283 of 1997 as the facts and the law points raised are identical and the parties are also common.2. In these petitions filed under Section 5 read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the awards given by the arbitrator dated November 13, 1997, have been challenged and a declaration is sought to the effect that the said award is bad in law, illegal, null and void ab initio, unreasonable, not executable and the same is liable to be set aside.3. The petitioner-company is registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Harshad Villa, Nehru Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400 057. The respondents are the claimants who had filed arbitration petition before this court and in the said petition Mr. Justice Jhunjhunwala (retired judge of this court) was appointed sole arbitrator by order dated June 13, 1997, passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice...
Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT584Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Two appeals one by the Department and one by the assessee against the order of the Collector of Central Excise are being disposed of by this common order.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of refrigerators, amongst other goods. Following introduction of the Modvat scheme in March, 1986 it filed a declaration under Rule 57G for various inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. This declaration was followed by further declarations. One among these being a declaration of 27th January, 1987. In this declaration the assessee mentioned polythene powder (atomthene) as an input. This input was not mentioned in the earlier declaration. In a further declaration of 17th May, 1988, in moulding grade plastic powder was declared as input. In February, 1991 the Department issued notice to the assessee proposing to recover credit taken of the duty paid on moulding grade plastic powder, between 19th March, 1986 and 16th May, 1988 i.e. from the date of the first declarat...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »