Mumbai Court February 1998 Judgments
M.M. Clearing Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT241Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is directed against the Order dated 23-9-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (G) Mumbai, by which the Commissioner has ordered suspension of the Custom House Agent Licence held by the appellant in exercise of powers conferred under Regulations 21(2) of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984. The Commissioner has made this order on basis of report that the appellant has sublet their CHA Licence to Shri Ganesh Shipping Agency. There was a statement of one Shri N.R. Sawant Proprietor of M/s. Shri Ganesh Shipping Agency stating that he is doing customs clearance through the appellant and that he then processes the documents through the Custom House through one Shri Ramdas K. Bhonsle, an employee of the appellant. The authorised signatory of the appellant Shri Mahendra Daftary stated that Sawant brought in some business for which he paid a 30% of profit to him. The Commissioner had found that the appellant had not produced the authorisation letters from the importer and t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. S. Subramani and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT868Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is directed against the order captioned above dated 9-3-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai. The respondents are manufacturers of cement sleepers falling under Chapter 6807.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.They received Stranded Steel Wire as input and the Department initiated proceedings saying that this input material has not been declared in their Modvat declaration filed on 8-4-1987 wherein they have shown the input as High Tensile Steel Wire falling under Heading No. 73.08. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of Rs. 7,71,871.72 being modvat credit wrongly availed. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Division I, Vadodara dropped the proceedings. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vadodara, filed a review application before the Commissioner (Appeals) which also came to be rejected leading to the present appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, V...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shri R.A. Chandawarkar and Other
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR519; 1999BomCR(Cri)519; (1999)3BOMLR394; 1999CriLJ4449; 1999(2)MhLj650
ORDERS. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel; Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, the learned A.P.P. for the V.B. Ganatra, the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This is a Criminal Revision Application filed by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and order dated 21st March, 1991, passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Bombay in Criminal Case No. 82/S/90 discharging the accused/respondents with regard to the offences punishable under section 18(a)(i) read with sections 16 and 34 and punishable under section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.3. The brief facts of the prosecution are that a Drug Inspector Mr. V.D. Patil, from the office of the Joint Commissioner, Gr. Bombay, Food and Drug Administration M.S. had visited the Centenary Municipal Hospital, Kandivali, Bombay on 29th September, 1987 and that he had drawn a sample of the drug namely Vanmycetin Opticops of Batch No. G.V.A 7011 manufactured by respondent No. 6 M/s F.D.C. Pvt. Ltd. be...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Gopal Bhadekar Vs. Shereman's Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR758; 1998(5)BomCR392
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 24-11 -1986 passed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No. 203 of 1986 passed by the Single Judge of the respondents challenging the order dated 10.2.1986. That appeal was filed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay in R.A.E. Suit No. 1546/5300 of 1974. That suit was filed by the respondents claiming a declaration that the respondents are protected licensees/tenants of the suit premises. The trial Court, however, found on the basis of the material on record that the plaintiffs/respondents are the sub-tenants of the suit premises. The trial Court however, found that they were unlawful sub-tenants of the suit premises and, therefore, the trial Court dismissed the suit.2. In the appeal filed by the plaintiffs respondents the Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the arrangement arrived at between the...
Tag this Judgment!Manjula M. Thakkar Vs. Shivshakti Enterprises and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR759; 1998(5)BomCR265
ORDERP.M. Lodha, J.1. Leave to amend granted.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no relief is sought in the petition against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore service may be dispensed with on them. Mr. Nargolkar, Assistant Government Pleader, waives service on behalf of respondent No. 3.4. By this writ petition the petitioner who is plaintiff in the suit prays that she be permitted to file the above summary suit without payment of ad valorem Court fee in accordance with the exemption by the Notification No. 1091/CR dated 1.10.1994. The petitioner is a lady and submits that in view of the aforesaid notification, she is not liable to pay the ad valorem Court fee on the said suit.5. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in Deepa Shashikant Godambe v. State of Maharashtra and others : (1996)98BOMLR675 , and the aforesaid notification.6. The notification dated 1-10-1994 reads thus: 'REVENUE AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT Mantrala...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Kishan Gohane Vs. Kalpana Shankar Gohane and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR396; 1998CriLJ4455; I(1999)DMC405; 1998(2)MhLj553
ORDERA.B. Palkar, J.Rule. Shri G.G. Modak, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1. accepts service of rule and Shri A.S. Sonare, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts the same on behalf of State. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent.2. This petition raises a very simple point regarding jurisdiction of the Magistrate to decide an application for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the basis of an affidavit. The petitioner herein was a respondent in proceeding under section 125 commenced at the instance of the present non-applicant respondent No. 1 Kalpana Shankar Gohane. The said application of non-applicant No. 1 the wife of the present petitioner was registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 197/95 which was decided on 12-3-1996 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha and the said order was confirmed in Criminal Revision Application No. 30/96 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha by order dated 8-10-1997 granting monthly maintenance at the rate ...
Tag this Judgment!Gyanik Shahuji Mundhe Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR564
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. Heard Shri S.R Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.B. Choudhary, learned A.P.P. for the respondents, Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made-returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner who is 81 years of age, has filed this petition for parole. The petitioner had applied for parole to the authorities in the month of July, 1997, on the ground that he has to attend his old and ailing wife who was seriously ill. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, rejected the said application for parole in August, 1997. The copy of the said order was not handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 425 of 1997, challenging the order of rejection of parole passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. In the said matter, as per the order dated 3-11-1997, this Court directed that if any appeal is filed by the petitioner before the State Government against the order of rejection of parole that be decided with...
Tag this Judgment!Dalal Project Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Akaram Shankar Chaukekar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR187]; (1999)ILLJ48Bom
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard.2. During the course of arguments, Mr. Rele, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the recent judgment of the Apex Court delivered in Civil Appeal No. 518 of 1992 Colour-Chem Limited v. A.L. Alaspurkar and Ors. decided on February 5, 1998. The Apex Court in Colour Chem Limited considered the scope of provisions of Clause (g) of item I of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the Act) at great length and ruled the subject matter of Clause (g) is the misconduct of minor or technical character only and the remaining parts of the clause do not indicate any separate subject-matter like the major misconduct. The Apex Court ruled thus:'For resolving the controversy centering round this point it is necessary to have a look at the relevant statutory provisions of the Act. The Act was passed by the Maharashtra Legislature in 1971 as Act No. 1 of 1972. Amongst its di...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Balasaheb Barungale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: II(1998)DMC363
A.P. Shah, J.1. The appellant who has been convicted by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1994 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for causing the death of his wife Anita by burning her, has preferred this appeal before us.2. Facts set up by the prosecution, in brief, are these. Anita and her husband Kalyan (accused) and their little child were living together with the appellant's parents at village Nagobachi Wadi. The first informant Bhagwat (PW 2) is the father of Anita and is residing at Umerga. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused was ill-treating Anita. He used to beat her under the influence of liquor. On 10th March, 1994 Anita suffered burn injuries at about 2.30 p.m. She was immediately removed to Jugdale Mama Hospital at Barshi. There she was treated by Dr. Nimkar (PW 6) who found that she had suffered extensive burns over her chest, hands and right side back. Anita wa...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: (1998)(76)LC77Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both these appeals raise a common issue, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. Appeal No. E/2738/89 has been filed by the assessee against the order dt. 25.11.1989 passed by the Collector (Appeals) rejecting the claim of classification of the product "Chassis with Cowl" under sub-heading No. 8706.40 i.e. under the description chassis fitted with engine or the motor vehicles for the transport of goods. The department on subsequent verification after the classification list had been confirmed, noticed that the vehicle was not a motor vehicle for transport of goods but it was cleared for manufacture of passenger type of vehicles and hence on the basis of investigation and after carrying out detailed adjudication the lower authorities confirmed the classification under sub-heading No. 8706.30 of the Central Excise Tariff. In this case the show cause notice was issued on 28.8.1986, which was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector by his order dt.6.2.1987 and has al...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »