Mumbai Court June 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.
Photophone Industries India Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC142Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of "photophone photographic cameras" and clearing the goods on payment of appropriate duty, filed refund claim dated 28.4.1987 for Rs. 14,40,204.50 being excess duty paid under protest on the value of gift box and after sales service charges. Appellant also filed another refund claim dated 27.2.1987 seeking refund of Rs. 3,78,856.25. The Assistant Collector held that a part of the first claim was barred by limitation, treated excess duty collected cum-duty price and worked out the duty actually payable on the non-barred part of the first refund claim and the amount of the second refund claim and found that the amounts actually eligible for refund were Rs. 11,74,680/- and Rs. 3,03,085/-. These amounts were partly directed to be refunded and in regard to another part, credit was granted. On the aspect of limitation and recalculation of duty amount, appellant filed an appeal before Collector (Appeals) who set aside the finding that a part of the f...
Vallabhji Salji Shah Vs. Gopal Savlaram Rajadhyaksha and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR524; 1998(4)BomCR330; 1998(3)MhLj152
ORDERA.P. Shah, J. 1. This is the tenant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 24th December 1985 passed by the 6th Addl, District Judge, Thane, whereby the order of dismissal of suit passed by the trial Court was reversed and eviction of the tenant was ordered. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are as under :Petitioner is the monthly tenant of respondent No. 1 in respect of a single room on the ground floor of the building-known as Vrindavan Bldg. No. 2 situated at Ram Maruti Road, Thane. Respondent No. 1-landlady filed Reg. Civil Suit No. 483 of 1978 against the petitioner for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent. Respondent No. 1 averred that the petitioner had failed to pay the rent of Rs. 15/- per month plus Government education cess, Municipal education cess, employment guarantee cess and tree cess all fixed at Rs. 2.50 per month and sanitary charges of Rs. 2....
The Chief Officer, Margao Municipal Council and Another Vs. Shri Vaman ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR598; 1998(4)BomCR373
ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. This appeal is filed by the original defendants against whom the respondent-plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 47/1982/D in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao for perpetual injunction. The trial Court by its Judgment dated 31st October 1989 dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 65/89/A in the District Court, South Goa, Margao and the learned Additional District Judge by his judgment dated 2nd January 1995 partly allowed the appeal permanently restraining the defendants from demolishing the plaintiff's house, cowshed, storeroom, W.C., etc., with a further direction not to interfere with the said property within a distance of two meters from the outer wall of the house, cowshed etc.. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred this appeal.2. The plaintiff filed the abovementioned suit without making any reference to his mundkarial rights, contending that he has a dwelling house, cowshed, storeroom and W.C. ...
Lalji Lachhamndas Vs. AmiruddIn Amanulla and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR446; 1998(4)BomCR335; 1998(3)MhLj237
ORDERA.P. Shah, J. 1. A room bearing No. 2 in Chawl No. 2 situated at Jawahar Nagar, Khar (East) Bombay, is tenanted by the respondent in this petition and the petitioner is the owner of the said room and therefore, landlord of the respondent. The monthly rent of the said room, which will hereinafter be referred to suit premises, is Rs. 13.50 ps. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent was in arrears of rent from April 1967. A composite notice terminating the tenancy of the respondent as well as calling upon him to pay arrears of rent due from him was sent on 22nd March 1968. However, the respondent did not pay the arrears and hence became a defaulter within the meaning of section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Act'). The other two grounds urged against the respondent were that he had changed the user of the premises from residential to business and secondly, it was alleged that he had carried out ...
Vijay Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR795
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. This writ petition was sought for admission for granting direction to the C.B.I. to take over the investigation in respect of all the complaints against the petitioner by depositors all over India and for other consequential reliefs.2. The petitioner by name Vijay Kumar Sharma is the Managing Director/Chairman of a group of financial companies conducting business in the name and style of (1) J.V.G. Finance Ltd., (2) J.V.G. Leasing Ltd., (3) J.V.G. Securities Ltd., (4) J.V.G. Holdings Ltd., (5) J.V.G. Investments. The above companies were functioning in Mumbai Maharashtra State and there are thousands of depositors to the said companies not only in the State of Maharashtra, but also in the other States of the country. In view of the non-return of the deposit money by the said companies, the depositors used to lodge criminal complaints against the said companies and the Managing Directors, who are voluminous in nature, and who hails not only from Maharashtra but a...
Orkay Industries Limited and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR14
ORDERS.N. Variava, J.1. By all these petitions the petitioners pray that the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate Courts, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, be quashed. In some of these petitions a prayer is also made that undertakings given by the concerned petitioners to those courts, to pay amounts, be also quashed and/or set aside.2. Most of these petitions have been filed by Directors of two companies viz. Orkay Industries Limited and Atash Industries (India) Limited. In most of these petitions the concerned company is also a party. In some, it is a co-petitioner. In some, it is a respondent. In all these petitions common questions of law are raised. The main question raised before this Court is whether by virtue of section 536(2) read with section 441(2) of theCompanies Act providing that all transfers made, after the commencement of winding up, will be void, any offence can be deemed to have been committed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrumen...
Alikhan Hamidkhan Pathan Vs. Gaffar Husen Avasekar and 11 ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR486; (1998)100BOMLR750
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Heard Ms Mhatre holding for Mr. R.L. Patil for the petitioner, Mr. Gavenekar for Respondent Nos. 1 to 11 and Mr. Singbal, APP for Respondent No. 12.2. By this revision application, the petitioner (Original complainant) has impugned the Judgment and order dated 15.6.1990 passed by the Additional sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag in Criminal Revision Application No. 16 of 1987, whereby the revision preferred by the respondent No. 12 for enhancement of sentence of the respondent Nos. 1 to 11 was dismissed. It appears that the respondent Nos. 1 to 11 were prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 336, 427, 504 and 506 IPC read with 149 IPC, in the Court of the JMFMC, Alibag on a complaint filed by the petitioner. Excepting respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 7 who were directed to furnish a bond of good behaviour for a period of two years, other respondents were each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- each in default to suffer 15 days Simple imprisonment by the JMF...
Sou. Leelavati and ors. Vs. Nivrutti and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: I(1999)DMC542
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Respondent No. 1 Nivrutti is the husband of the applicant No. 1 Sou. Leelavati and father of applicant No. 2 Hemlata. It appears that the applicant No. 1 filed an application for maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code on 26.7.1983 before JMFC, Bhor. The learned Magistrate was pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 40/- p.m. and Rs. 20/- p.m. as maintenance to the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Subsequently, the applicants moved an application under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code for enhancement of the maintenance allowance before the JMFC, Bhor. In the said application, it was mentioned that since the salary of the respondent was Rs. 1,100/- p.m. he be directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 160/- p.m. to the applicant Sou. Leelavati and Rs. 150/- p.m. to applicant Hemlata. The learned JMFC, Bhor vide his order dated 16.2.1989, accepted the prayer of the applicants and increased the maintenance allowance in the manner pra...
Nirmal Electric Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT888Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The delay of twenty days in filing this reference application which is attributed to illness of the proprietor of the applicant and having to go out of the country on account of urgent work is condoned.2. The following questions are proposed for reference to the High Court. 1. Whether sworn affidavits by merchant-exporters be not relied in the court of law 2. Actual evidence of export by such merchant-exporters about the very goods of applicant can or cannot be treated as exports. 3. Whether only factory gate clearances of the goods only direct for export be treated as export or through merchant-exporters? In the appeal before it the Tribunal had for consideration the question as to whether, for purposes of calculating value of clearances under Notification No. 71/78 and Notification No. 89/79, the goods stated by the respondents, to be exported through export house and merchant-manufacturers should be taken into account or not. The Tribunal held as follows : "For earning benefits ...
Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT954Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are manufacturing two and three wheeled motor vehicles. They opted for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules; three show cause notices were issued to them on 28-8-1989, 23-10-1989 and 23-11-1989, seeking to recover Modvat credit wrongly availed of by them. The ground given in these show cause notices and which now survives for decision is that the appellants failed to file the declaration under Rule 57G for Modvat purpose showing the full description of the inputs with the Chapter Heading and sub-heading and sub-heading numbers of the inputs on which credit has been taken during the month of 1-3-1989 to 30-6-1989. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Division I, confirmed the demand and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld it.2. The ld. Counsel Shri L.B. Attar for the appellant submitted that the appellants had filed declaration on 1-3-1986 at the very beginning of the Modvat credit scheme and at that time there was no prescribed proforma fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »