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.
Rasiklal Ratilal Gandhi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR503
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents, Union of India and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, to grant interest to the petitioner on the amount of Rs. 1,01,292.12 which was refunded to the petitioner pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court. The case of the petitioner is that the above amount was illegally collected from the petitioner by the respondents and retained by them till the refund was made and hence the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount for the period during which the amount remained with the respondents. 2. Mr. R.V. Desai, learned Counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition. According to him no writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief of payment of interest on the amount of refund made by the Central Excise authorities to the petitioner is maintainable, as there is no statutory p...
Shri Padmanabh Keshav Kamat Vs. Shri Anup R. Kantak and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR546; 1999CriLJ122
ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. The petitioner has filed this revision application under section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the Order dated 15th April, 1998, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 64/97-B. The said Order was passed on an application filed by respondent No. 1 herein under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the learned Magistrate allowed the application directing the petitioner to handover possession of the disputed premises to the respondent No. 1. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed this revision application directly to this Court.2. The facts giving rise to the dispute between the parties may be briefly stated, as under:---Respondent No. 1 is a co-owner of shop Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground floor of Sita Smriti Building at Santa Inez, Panaji. Previously the petitioner was in occupation of these two shops as a tenant...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sulphur Refinery Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: [1998]234ITR453(Bom); [1998]105TAXMAN400(Bom)
DR. B. P. SARAF J.-By this reference under section 256(1) of the income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('The Tribunal') has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the same, the provisions of section 209A(4) were applicable in the instant case, so as to attract the provisions of section 273(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The controversy in this reference pertains to the assessment year 197980. The material facts giving rise to this controversy, briefly stated, are as follows :In the assessment of the assessee-company for the assessment year 1979-80, the Income-tax Officer noticed that on June 14, 1978, the assessee-company had filed a statement in Form No. 28A showing loss of Rs. 3,199 while its income was assessed at Rs. 3,01,540. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, initiated proceedings for levy of penalty under section 273(2)(c) of the Income-tax A...
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Mumbai)17
ORDERBY THE BENCH:As all the three appeals arise from a consolidated order passed by CIT(A) and as they involve more or less similar issues, they are being disposed of together, for sake of convenience.2. The assessee- company is India's most important private sector company which manufactures and deals in iron and steel. On 29th Jan., 1982, it entered into two agreements with Dolomitwerke (later on referred as DOL). The company was located in then what was known as Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). The first agreement was for obtaining technical know-how for manufacture of fluxing materials for steel making and the other for obtaining technical know-how for manufacture of specifically refractories for steel making. As per art. I of both the agreements, the technical know-how is to be provided by DOL comprised of process details including flow sheets, plant layout tender specifications for main process equipment and technical data for remaining equipment. It also contains suggestion o...
Bharat Gear Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT958Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two applications are for waiver of deposit of duty totalling Rs. 73.98 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. The duty has been demanded on the finding of the Commissioner that the industrial furnaces manufactured by the applicant are not immovable property and are liable to excisable duty applicable to Tariff Heading 84.17.2. After hearing both sides we find that the applicant has a strong prima facie case both on merits and on limitation for the following reasons.3. There is nothing to support the allegation in the notices that the furnaces are fabricated or manufactured and supplied prior to the erection. The invoices on which the notices placed reliance contained words "fabrication, supply, erection and commissioning". We cannot agree prima facie that the order in which the words appears leads to the conclusion that the furnaces we first came into existence elsewhere and were installed afterwards. Besides, this allegation was specifically challenged in the reply to the notice...
Indian Dyestuffs Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT343Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector who has held that the goods imported by the appellant, described as spares for filter press and found on verification to be filter blades made of polypropylene were not covered by OGL entry of Appendix 6, List 8, Part I, for the reason that they were "filter segments". Subsequent to the order the appellant has produced a clarification issued on 23rd January, 1992 by the Chief Controller of, Imports & Exports. This clarification that the goods, described as Polypropylene Corner Feed Membrane Block is covered by the entry at Serial No. 658 of Appendix 6, List 8, Part I. The description in that clarificatory letter tallies with the description of the goods imported by the appellant as indicated in the literature of the manufacturer. In view of the clarification issued by the authority the goods were covered by the OGL entry.2. I therefore allow the appeal and set aside the confiscation of the goods. Consequential relief....
Albright Morarji and Pandit Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC84
1. The Appellants are availing of Modvat credit under Rule 57A for payment of duty on their final products. Proceedings were initiated against them by issue of show cause notice dated 13-11-1992 alleging that they have wrongly availed Modvat credit on Caustic Soda Lye used in the manufacture of Liner Alkyl Benzene Sulphuric Acid (LABS) falling under Heading 3402 Central Excise Tariff Act. They have availed of Modvat credit on Caustic Soda Lye which is used for neutralising the gases before they are allowed to escape in the air for pollution control purposes. It was therefore alleged that Caustic Soda Lye was not used in or in relation to the manufacture of LABS and hence ineligible for Modvat credit. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Panvel-II Division, confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 15,588/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the Appellant.2. The Appellants challenged the Assistant Commissioner's order before Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the A...
Shri A.G. Keni (Since Deceased) by His Legal Representatives Vs. Prasa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR367
ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. The legal heirs of one deceased A.G. Keni, a member tenant of respondent No. 1 Society has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for setting aside the Order dated 31-8-95, passed by the Co-operative Tribunal, Panaji in Co-operative Appeal No. 25/88 confirming the Order dated 28-7-88 passed by the Registrar of the Society in Case No. 44/122/84/ARN/ARCS on the application filed by the respondent No. 1 Society under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act as applicable to Goa (herein referred to as the 'Act') and directing A.G. Keni and respondent No. 2 to deliver possession of shop No. 4 to the Society.2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition lie in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 1 is a Co-operative Housing Society registered under the Act as applicable to Goa. It constructed a building having residential flats and shops.The deceased A.G. Keni was one of the members of ...
Ali Jawad Ameerhasan Rizvi and ors. Vs. Indo French Biotech Enterprise ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1998
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas373(Bom)
M.B. Shah, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Unfortunately, it appears that there is no legislation which can effectively control the mushrooming of companies which tempt small investors to deposit or invest their life-savings in such companies promising to pay fanciful returns on their investment but actually defrauding the investors after siphoning off large amounts from such investments. It is also unfortunate that nationalised banks are also advancing loans to such institutions without adequate security from such companies as well as their directors. The situation on the whole, prima facie, is not very happy and knowing fully well the parameters of the powers of the court as well as the self-imposed restrictions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we, the courts, cannot be silent spectators to such piquant situations.3. In the present case, it is the case of the petitioners that petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 are shareholders of respondent No. 1-company, viz., In...
Duryodhan Bhagwat Devkate and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR160
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Since all these matters arise out of the same set of facts and a common Judgment, we are disposing them off by one Judgment.2. Eight persons namely (1) Madhukar Vishnu Devkate (2) Sadashive Vishnu Devkate (3) Vishnu Krishna Devkate (4) Vlthal Bhagwat Devkate (5) Haridas Namdeo Devkate (6) Gorakh Bhagwat Devkate (7) Duryodhan Bhagwat Devkate and (8) Tukaram Vishnu Devkate, were tried by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 85 of 1984, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, IPC in the alternative Section 302 read with 34 IPC and 324 read with 34 IPC. Vide Judgment and order dated 8-10-1984, the learned Judge was pleased to convict and sentence Duryodhan Bhagwat Devkate and Tukaram Vishnu Devkate in the manner set out hereinafter :-(i) Under Section 323 read with 34 IPC to three months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for one month ; and(ii) Under Section 325 read with 34 IPC to...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »