Mumbai Court November 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.
Gorakh Kanhoba Chavan and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR798; 1999CriLJ2108; 1999(1)MhLj646
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. G.B. Chavan for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the State 1 respondents. The appellants are the original accused Nos. 1, 4 to 7 who were convicted by Special Judge (S.R. Joshi) for the offence under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. In fact, all these accused alongwith accused Nos. 2 and 3 were charge sheeted and prosecuted for the offence under section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act for having found in possession of 8 kilo and 700 grams of Ganja and also in possession of 50 litres of country made liquor. They were also acquitted under the N.D.P.S. Act, but the present appellants were convicted under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act for consumption, using, possession and transportation of any intoxicant. 3. I heard Mr. Chavan and learned A.P.P. at length. It was cont...
Bhalchandra G. Naik Vs. Suresh Melvani and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR221; 2000BomCR(Cri)221; 1999CriLJ1908
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The petitioner is seeking to challenge the Order dated 13-7-1998 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 29 of1998 by the Sessions Judge at Panaji. The learned Sessions Judge has, by the impugned order, confirmed the Order dated 19-6-1998 passed in C.C. No. 3/92/C by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji. By the said Order, the learned Magistrate had declined to direct the complainant/ respondent No, 1 to furnish to the accused/petitioner a copy of the complaint to police lodged by the complainant in the Police Station at Panaji. According to the petitioner, although in case of private complaint there is no provision for furnishing copies of the documents on which the complainant wants to rely upon such copies are necessary for effective cross-examination of the complainant and his witnesses by or on behalf of the accused and great prejudice may result if copies of such documents are not furnished in advance to the accused and it may am...
Modi Stone Employees Union Vs. Modi Stone Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR496; (1999)101BOMLR668
A.P. Shah, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th February, 1998 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dismissing Complaint (ULP) No. 857 of 1997 filed by the petitioner union under Section 28 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. This Act will hereinafter be referred to for short as the said Act.2. The material facts leading to the petitioner's complaint must be set out briefly as follows. The respondent is a Company engaged In manufacture of tyres, tubes and flaps. By notice dated 22nd September, 1997, the respondent Company declared its intention to effect lockout with effect from 8th October, 1997. Even before the lockout notice was issued the recognised petitioner union had filed Complaint (ULP) No. 766 of 1997 in the Industrial Court, Mumbai, apprehending lockout and/or closure of the Company's factory at Sewree. On 28th August, 1997, the Industrial Court by an ad interim order restrained the respondent Company from...
Dinkar Vithoba Salgaokar and ors. Vs. Sharad Jagannath Kulkarni and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR486
P.S. Patankar, J.1. I passed the order on 5.10.1998 remanding the matter to the Assistant Collector, Sawantwadi, to hear the Appeal afresh. It was based upon the concession given by the learned Counsel for the Respondents. However, the learned Counsel for the Respondents filed a note stating that he has not made any such concession. In view of this, I recall the said order.2. Heard both sides.3. This Petition arises out of a reference made by the Civil Court under Section 85A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). The suit was filed by one Jagannath Kulkarni for permanent injunction restraining the Petitioners from interfering with his possession. The Respondents are the heirs of the said Jagannath. The question referred under 85A was whether the petitioners were tenants in respect of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 45/4, 45/13, 45/19 and 45/4 situated at Village Malwan, District Sindhudurg. The case of the petitioners was that ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT633Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Respondents manufacture cement falling under the Chapter 25 of CETA.They were having a wet process unit and a dry process unit for manufacturing cement in the same premises until July, 1988 when they took out separate Central Excise for their dry process unit and accordingly were maintaining separate accounts statutorily prescribed.There was a declaration filed under Rule 57G for Modvat purposes by the undivided unit on 4-3-1987 in respect of their input gypsum. The new unit which came into existence from 1-5-1987 did not file any declaration for Modvat purpose.2. The department found that the appellants had received inputs gypsum in their old unit and taken credit in that unit which was also accounted for in the RG 23A Part I and Part II account maintained by that unit. But it was found that the input received in the old unit has been utilised in the new dry process unit and the credit so taken has been utilised towards payment of duty on the final produce cleared from the dry pro...
Nestle India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT505Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 12.04 crores and penalty of equal amount.2. The duty and penalty followed the Commissioner's finding that the goods manufactured by the applicant, with the brand name Kitkat is classified under Heading 18.03 as chocolate in any form and not as claimed by the assessee under Heading 1905.11, which is for biscuits, waffles and wafers manufactured by it. The product itself consists essentially of wafers completely covered in chocolate.3. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that on limitation as well as on merits there was strong case. On limitation, it was contended that by various documents the composition of the product has been disclosed to the department. The revised declaration, dated 5-6-1995 described the goods to be crisp wafer fingers covered with milk chocolate and the subsequent declarations repeated this description. This declaration also was accepted by the department, after the Superintendent had visited the fact...
D.T. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT189Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of penalties as follows :- D.T. Mehta (application 1550) Rs. 17 lakhs Manubhai V. Makwana (application 1991) Rs. 5 lakhs Bharatbhai B. Parmar (application 1992) Rs. 7 lakhs Jagdishbhai P. Parikh (application 1993) Rs. 12 lakhs Subhash K. Darji (application 1994) Rs. 9 lakhs.2. We have heard Shri J.C. Patel for D.T. Mehta and Shri K.V. Oza for the other applicants and the departmental representative.3. The Commissioner's order was passed on a notice proposing penalty for abetment of smuggling of three motor cars of a kind which were prohibited for export in view of their age. It is the department's case that the export was facilitated by production of the regional transport officer's registration certificate showing the year of manufacture as 1960 of cars which were manufactured much earlier and hence not permitted to be exported. All four applicants are employed in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Nadiad. D.T. Mehta was a motor ve...
Grauer and Weil (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC208Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant manufactures electroplating equipments. It is stated that this equipment consists of number of machines any of which may perform individual functions yet all of which contribute together to the electroplating, and that therefore a complete electroplating machine or assembly of machines is classifiable under heading 85.43 of the Tariff and parts thereof also under that heading subject to the other provisions of the Tariff. In the order impugned in the appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner that goods which were cleared by the appellant were not identifiable parts of electroplating machinery and that credit of duty paid by the manufacturers of such goods from whom the appellant purchased these goods should be reversed as provided in Rule 57F(1)(ii) when they were cleared from the appellant's factory.2. Advocate for the appellant raises the point that the notice proceeds on the assumption that the goods did not undergo any mod...
The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Another Vs. the Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR16; 1999(1)BomCR447; 1999(1)MhLj397
ORDERA.C. Agarwal, J.1. The present petition in so far as it seeks to impugn the virus of sub-section (2) of section 28 of the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969 and sub-section (2) of section 83 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 will no longer survive in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai, reported in : [1986]1SCR707 wherein the virus of the entire Act has been upheld. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision in para 13 has observed as follows (Page 256 Bom.C.R):'13. Even granting for purposes of argument that sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 44 are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, we are of the view that the said provisions receive the protection of Article 31-C of the Constitution. We shall proceed to test the validity of the argument keeping aside for the time being the observations in Sanjeev Coke ., : [1983]1SCR1000 . Let us proceed on the basis that after Ke...
Daivadnya Brahman Samajotkarshak Saunsthana Vs. Vishveshwar Apa Bhat R ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR595
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1989 passed on 30th June, 1993, by the Additional District Judge, Panaji, whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 15th April, 1989,.passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 71 of 1984 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim was set aside and the suit was remanded for trial. In fact, by order dated 15-4-1989, the trial Court had dismissed the suit.2. The substantial question of law which arises for determination in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the respondent for his declaration to be the tenant of the suit property, which is admittedly agricultural land, and for recovery of possession and permanent injunction against the appellant/landlord is barred by the provision of law contained in Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'?3. The respondent herein filed Regular Civil Suit No. 71 of 1984 again...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »