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.
Jaysing @ Gangawa Mesraj Kharariya and Others Vs. the State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR322; 1999CriLJ1687
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Since both these appeals arise out of same set of facts and a common impugned Judgment, we are disposing them off by one Judgment.Through these appeals, the appellants challenge the Judgement and Order dated 2-8-1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 206 of 1995, convicting and sentencing them in the manner stated hereinafter :-(i) Under section 302 r/w 34 r/w 149 I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 months R.I.; (ii) Under section 148 I.P.C. to undergo one year R.I.; (iii) Under section 4 r/w section 25 of the Arms Act to undergo 3 months R.I. The substantive sentences of the appellants have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :-There was enmity between the deceased Naubatsing and the appellant Jaysing @ Gangawa Mesraj Kharariya because the latter had a feeling that the former had got his brother Raju ...
Shri H.B. Bhongale Vs. Smt. Zarina Shoukatali Jafar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR886
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Shri Mundargi for the petitioners and Shri Kankaria for the respondent No. 1 in both the petitions. Both these petitions arise out of the order of issuance of process and rejection of the application of all the Accused for discharge by the Trial Court Magistrate i.e. Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Uran (Shri D.D. Kamble).2. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 135 of 1997 is the Chief Officer of Uran Municipal Council and the petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 136 of 1997 are the employees of the Uran Municipal Council. They were prosecuted by respondent No. 1 by filing a complaint under Sections 380, 427 and 451 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the accused demolished the structure of the complainant illegally and committed theft of the articles of the complainant.3. After the complaint was filed, the Magistrate ordered an investigation in the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and directe...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mistair Home Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT204Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Mistair Home Products, the respondent in this appeal; manufactured and cleared, inter alia shower to shower medicated prickly heat powder. It filed a price list under Part I i.e. the normal price at which such goods are sold or offered for sale for this product.Assistant Collector did not accept this price list and returned it to the assessee asking it to revise the value by applying the provision of Notification 245/83, dated 13-9-1983. This notification provides for an exemption, from duty of patent or proprietary medicine in excess of the duty leviable on the value to be calculated in the manner specified in the notification. The respondent resisted the contention claiming that the value ought to be fixed on the basis of cost of raw material + conversion charges + including the profit. In pursuance of the Assistant Collector's order, the Superintendent demanded differential duty on the goods already cleared. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. On appeal the Collec...
Kitply Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT838Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application is for waiver of deposit of penalty totalling Rs. 70.00 lacs.2. Advocate for the applicant explains that penalty has been imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that whereas bonding agent was used urea formaldehyde in the manufacture of commercial plywood exported, applicant had declared to the licensing authority for advance licence that what was to be used was phenol formaldehyde. The Commissioner therefore confiscated under clauses (m) and (o) of Section 111 phenol imported by the applicant denying the benefit of exemption notification and imposed penalty.2. After hearing the Departmental Representative, we are totally at a loss to understand prima facie how conditions of either clause (m) or (o) of Section 111 are attracted. For clause (o) to apply, the goods would have to be exempted at the time of import and the benefit of exemption notification later not fulfilled. That is not the case here.There is no finding that the imported goods were misdeclared. We ther...
Somaiya Organo Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT703Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufactures acetic acid from molasses which it obtained from a sugar factory. In the process of manufacture of acetic acid from molasses ethyl alcohol comes into existence. Appellant took credit under Rule 57G of the duty paid on the molasses and applied it towards payment of duty on the acetic acid. Duty was not paid on the ethyl alcohol in terms of notification. On 1-3-1989 under a notification issued under Rule 57K, ethyl alcohol was nofified as an input in the manufacture of inter alia acetic acid and money credit to the extent of Rs. 520/-per kilo litre of ethyl alcohol used in the manufacture of acetic acid not eligible to be used towards payment of duty on that final product. From 1-9-1989 appellant commenced availing of the provisions of this notification. From that date onwards it stopped taking credit of the duty paid on molasses under Rule 57G.2. Notice was issued proposing recovery of the credit taken on so much of molasses as was used in the manufacture ...
Wamanrao S/O Zalbaji Satpute Vs. Collector, Nagpur and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Bom103; 1999(2)ALLMR189; 1999(2)BomCR47; (1999)2BOMLR101
ORDERG.D. Path, J.1. In all these petitions since the prayer is for quashing and setting aside the Supplementary voters lists at Annexure A to the respective petitions and since the petitioners are claiming restoration of their names in the voters' lists as delegates of their respective societies to vote at an election of the Managing Committee of the respondent Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'), they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. All the petitioners are members of their respective Seva Sahakari Societies registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which are classified as Service Societies and the respondent Bank is the federal society of these societies.The societies of which the petitioners are delegates, are thus the member societies of the Federal Society-the respondent Bank. It is an undisputed fact in all these pe...
Rangrao S/O Shankarrao Deceased Through L.Rs and Others Vs. Pandharina ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR15; 1999(4)BomCR180
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J. 1. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal inAppeal No. 5/A/84- Parbhani, decided on 17-12-1986. 2. The brief facts which require consideration are as follows. The petitioner (original plaintiff) and respondent No. 2 (original defendant) are real brothers. Respondent No. 1 is a purchaser from the respondent No. 2 of Survey No. 82, to the extent of 6 Acres and 15 Gunthas, which is 1/2 of the total area of the said survey number. The said land is of the share of the respondent No. 2-original defendant No. 2, namely the brother of the petitioner/ plaintiff. The respondent No. 1/original defendant No. 1 has purchased it from the respondent No. 2/original defendant No. 2 on 22-9-1953. After the said purchase, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit No. 36/1/1955, which was subsequently re-numbered as 36/1958. The plaintiff filed the said suit to claim a right of pre-emption b...
Vithal Ramchandra Biradar and Another Vs. Shri P.G. Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR62; 1999(4)BomCR176; [2000(85)FLR377]; 1999(2)MhLj973
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the College tribunal for Nagpur, Amravati and Marathwada Universities on 29-7-1986 in Appeal No. M-6/ 1986. The respondent No. 3 herein was appointed as a Library Assistant on 28-6-1971 and his claim for promotion was not considered by the respondent No. 2 management, when according to the respondent No. 3 he was entitled for the said promotion in the year 1979. It is his contention that other persons have been promoted to the post of Senior Clerk when the respondent No. 3 was validly entitled for the said promotion. Rest of the grievances made in the appeal were not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. However, the dispute in between the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 management was in respect of the jurisdiction of the tribunal, namely, the respondent No. 2 management was contending that the grievance in respect of the supersession or denial of promotion cannot be considered by the tri...
Suresh Rama Sakat Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR44
Ashok A. Desai, J.1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay, accepting the dying declaration, marked as Exhibit-5, recorded the finding of conviction against the appellant/accused for having committed murder of his wife Baina by setting her on fire on 11.9.92 at about 3.00 p.m. in their residential premises. Baina, before her death, has tendered 3 dying declarations which are consistent and implicate the accused as a person responsible for homicidal death.2. The sum and substance of the dying declaration is that her husband was addicted to liquor and mostly doing pick pocketing. She used to do miscellaneous work and usually used to collect scrap. Her husband always harassed her for extracting money for consuming liquor. On the date of incident, her husband again started abusing and started demanding money. He assaulted her. Baina (deceased) therefore, poured kerosene on her person with a threat that she may commit suicide. Thereupon, the appellant/accused lighted match stick and thr...
India Cane House Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT240Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai-I made in Order-in-Original No.36/92 made on 20-7-1992 whereunder he had confirmed the duty demanded at Rs. 8.05 lakhs approximately and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the appellant.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cane furniture and articles of cane in their Byculla factory. They were also purchasing unpolished cane furniture from Goa. The same was received in the workshop of the appellants located at Tardeo, Mumbai which was run by the appellants from January, 1988. The Tardeo Unit was considered to be unauthorised construction by the Municipal Corporation. Hence no small scale registration was granted and the same was used by the appellants as godown of cane furniture. They were mainly doing the repair work in respect of the materials purchased by them from Goa which is damaged in transit and also doi...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »