Mumbai Court December 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.
Marine Container Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shaheel Bearings Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR452; 1999(2)MhLj728
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mr. Vahanvati, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners and Mr. J.B. Chinai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the company, viz. Shaheel Bearings Pvt. Ltd.2. By means of this winding up petition, the petitioners seek to winding up of the company viz. Shaheel Bearings Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that there is due owing and payable by the company to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 22,49.041.10 Ps. inclusive of interest as set out in particulars of claim with further interest at the rate of 22.5% per annum on Rs. 20 lakhs from the date of filing of the petition till payment. The said claim is based on the fact that at the request of the company, the petitioners agreed to place in or about October, 1996 with the company a deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs which the company required for the purpose of its business and in consideration thereof, the company executed in favour of and handed over to the petitioners a post dated cheque for Rs. 20 lakhs bearing No. 853471 dated 16th J...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Capt. C.P. Krishna Nair and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR286; (1999)1BOMLR873
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard J.S. Pawar, A.P.P. for the State/appellant and Mr. Marwadi for the respondents. 2. The State has filed this application challenging the Order of Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai G.V. Wadekar dated 3-7-1996 discharging all the respondents from their prosecution under the provisions of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act').3. It was contended by the learned A.P.P. for the appellant that finding of the Magistrate that the complaint was barred by limitation was wrong because the bird Peafowl (Pavo Cristatus) at Sr. No. 11 in Part III of Schedule I was a protected bird which was found in possession of the accused-respondents, is made punishable under the proviso to section 51 and the sentence that is prescribed is six years and hence the complaint was filed within limitation. Mr. Marwadi tried to contend from the report of Zoology Expert Dr. M.S. Pradhan that the bird was described by Dr. Pradhan as Pavo Cristatus Linn and hence ac...
Ravi Chabiram Sharma Vs. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR271; 1999BomCR(Cri)271; 1999CriLJ2960; 1999(1)MhLj839
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. Through filing this writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-the detenu himself -has challenged the order of detention passed by the first respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, the Commissioner of Police, Bhrihan Mumbai in Detention Order bearing No. 103/P.C.B./D.P./Zone-VI/1997 dated 18-12-1997, pursuant to sub-clause (1) of section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981(No. LV of 1981) amended on 1996 for its illegality and impropriety. The order of detention shown as Exh. A along with the grounds of detention annexed as Exh. B with the documents numbering about 35, all covering from page 1 to 252 annexed in Exh. C, were served upon the detenu on 19-12-1997 simultaneously.2. The prejudicial activities grounded by the Detaining Authority with above order of detention in substance are as follows:-At about 19.45 hours on 18-8-1997 one Mr. Dat...
Sakir Ali Shaukat Ali Vs. Commr. of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT580Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 of Rs. 75,00,000/- on Sakir Ali Shaukat Ali (S.A. No. 1716/98); of Rs. 50,00,000/- on Anilkumar Hariprasad Patel (S.A. No. 1915/98); of Rs. 17,00,000/- on Raju Shankarbhai More (S.A. No. 1916/98) and of Rs. 10,00,000/- on Upendra Patel (S.A. No. 1917/98).2. Shri J.C. Shah, Advocate on behalf of Sakirali Saukatali Saiyed appeared and handed over an application. None of the other applicants is appeared despite notice. We have heard the Departmental Representative and perused the applications.3. Penalty has been imposed on each of the applicants on the finding by the Commissioner that they actively participated in exporting the vintage cars contrary to the provisions of law by misdeclaring them to be of Indian manufacture and finds that Sakirali had been contacted by Dirk Burger, a Belgian and asked to assist in purchase of the cars from their owner Maharani of Nabha and take steps to ...
K.N. Ladla Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT485Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the combined order of the Additional Collector of Customs confiscating under Section 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act. Two gold biscuits seized from the appellant's possession and imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on him under Clauses (a) & (b) of Section 112 of the Act read with Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act.2. Representative for the appellant first contends that the Additional Collector was not a competent authority to adjudicate the case under the Gold (Control) Act. He says that at the relevant time the Collector was empowered to adjudicate and not the Additional Collector that Notification 66/84 the Additional Collector of Customs and Additional Collector of Customs were no longer the authorities to adjudicate. He relies on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Bharat Hansraj Gandhi v. Additional Collector of Central Excise -1991 (55) E.L.T. 462.3. The impugned order was passed by the Additional Col...
Jayant Vegoils and Chemicals (P.) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: (2000)72ITD95(Mum.)
1. The two appeals of the assessee, for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86, are directed against the consolidated order dated 16-8-1996 of Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals)-XXIII, Mumbai. We are disposing of the two appeals, involving common grounds, by this consolidated order.2. The following grounds, common to both the assessment years, have been raised. "1.(a) The Learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax erred in confirming that the Assessing Officer was right in invoking the provisions of section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act. (b) The Learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax could not have had any reason to believe that the appellant has escaped the assessment of chargeable wealth. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax erred in holding that the right to develop and sale the property is an asset covered by section 40(3)(v) of Finance Act, 1983. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax failed to appreciate that the appellant is not the owner, but a mere licencee to develop and sale the pro...
Mrs. Shaila D. Varerkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR1; 1999(1)BomCR685; [1999(82)FLR769]; 1999(2)MhLj529
ORDERAshok Agarwal, Actg. C.J.1. Rule, By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.2. Denial of pensionary benefits to the petitioner is impugned in the present petition. The petitioner who was employed on the non-teaching staff i.e. to the post of Librarian in respondent No. 2 College retired on 7th January, 1987. By a circular issued by the Government on 16th November, 1996 provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, were made applicable to persons working in Government recognised and aided Non-Governmental Art Educational Institutes. The same was made effective from 1st April, 1995. Respondent No. 2 College was covered under the said circular. Petitioner accordingly by his communications dated 11th April, 1998 and 21st April, 1998 claimed benefits arising out of the pension scheme which was made applicable to respondent No. 2. Since the same were denied to the petitioner she has filed the present petition.3. Pensionary benefits are denied to the petitioner on th...
Kamlakar Gajanan Shenvi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR354; 1999BomCR(Cri)354; 1999(1)MhLj779
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Khandeparkar for the petitioner and Ms. Kantharia for the State.2. The petition is filed for quashing the proceedings initiated by the State against the petitioner for misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 2,159.66 paise on the ground that the proceedings are violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Khandeparkar pointed out that the so called misappropriation was allegedly committed by the petitioner between July, 1980 to June 1982 while the petitioner was acting as a Group Secretary of Sridevi Satheri Prasadic Vikas Co-operative Society. He also pointed out that the petitioner had, as per the charge sheet itself deposited the amount within a very short time but for the offences allegedly committed in 1980-82 the complaint was lodged by the auditor in 1987, charge sheet was filed in 1991 and charge was framed in 1993 but till this date not a single prosecution witness is examined.3. When the matter was previously heard, Mr. Khandepark...
Ramesh Padmakar Mhatre Vs. Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR424; (1999)101BOMLR380
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this Writ Petition, Petitioner seeks to challenge the Declaration Result given by the Chairman of the Standing Committee, Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation dated 14.10.1998. By the said Declaration, it has been declared that Harishchandra alias Bal Gauru Hardas stood elected as the Chairman of the Standing Committee.2. The facts giving rise to this Writ Petition, briefly are as follows:3. On 14.10.1998, a Meeting of Respondent No. 1 - Corporation was held to elect the new Chairman of the Standing Committee when Respondent No. 2, the outgoing Chairman, presided. A secret Ballot was held. Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 secured equal number of votes. That the 4th Respondent was elected as the Chairman of the Standing Committee on 14.10.1998. However, according to the Petitioner, the said Declaration Result was void and bad in law in view of the fact that the 2nd Respondent declared the 4th Respondent as elected as Chairman of the Standing Committee without givin...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT80Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application filed by the department seeking to refer to the Gujarat High Court the following question of law : "Whether coated titanium metal anodes used as Electrodes in the Electrolytic cell in which brine is electrolysed to produce Caustic Soda Lye can be treated as input under Rule 57A (1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, especially in the light of the excluded categories of inputs mentioned in the explanation to the said rule." 2. In the impugned order, we had held that titanium metal anodes is an eligible input for availing the Modvat credit. In the order when it was made we have taken note of the Tribunal's judgment in respect of the same assessee reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 424. The question proposed is whether titanium metal anodes used as Electrodes in the Electrolytic cell in which brine is electrolysed to produce Caustic soda lye can be treated as input or not is purely a question of fact. We had followed in our earlier judgment of the Tribunal in respect of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »