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.
Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bhujang Krishnaji K ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR171; (1999)101BOMLR83
S.B. Mhase, J.1. Heard Shri Pendharkar, the learned Counsel for the applicant. No one appears for the non-applicant.2. The order under challenge is dated 8th February, 1994 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Nagpur, below Exhibit 9 from Regular Civil Suit No. 2148 of 1986 by which the request was made by the present applicant/defendant to try and decide the issues of tenability of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Court as preliminary issues. It appears, from the order that Issue Nos. 17 to 20 at Exhibit 17 were proposed to the Trial Court to be considered as preliminary issues. Those issues are as follows :Issue No. 17 : Whether this Court has jurisdiction?Issue No. 18 : Whether the plaintiffs suit is barred by the principles of res judicata?Issue No. 19 : Does plaintiff prove that the plaintiff is estopped from challenging the order in view of his conduct and the record?Issue No. 20 : Whether the plaintiffs suit is barred by limitation?3. The learned Counsel appe...
Smt. Archana W/O Late Arun Joshi and Others Vs. Indian Airlines Corpor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR27; 1999(1)BomCR553
ORDERA.B. Palkar, J.1. All these petitions are filed by the heirs of the persons who died in a plane crash of the plane of Indian Airlines which took place on 26-4-1993 at Aurangabad. Flight bearing No. I.C. 491 operated by the Indian Airlines met with an accident immediately after it took off and in the said accident number of persons died and the present petitioners are the heirs of some of the deceased persons.2. After the mishap enquiry was conducted under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Justice V.A. Mohta (as he then was) of this Court and in the report he has made certain observations which are not germane to the issue to be decided in the present revision petitions and, therefore, I am not referring to the same.3. The petitioners in these petitions were offered by the respondent i.e. Indian Airlines an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for each of the deceased who were admittedly about 12 years of age. However, while making this offer the Indian Airlines wanted to put a condition that th...
Late Chavdas T. Bhortakke and Others Vs. Papilabai W/O Baburao Patil a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR694; 1999(1)BomCR785; 1999(3)MhLj42
ORDERA. B. Palkar, J.1. These two petitions pertaining to the same property in respect of similar dispute between the parties were heard together by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties and are being disposed of by common judgment.2. The litigation between parties is pending since long and there have been number of proceedings which came up to this Court and in order to appreciate the real controversy, it is necessary to have a bird's eye view at the history of the litigation 3. The land in dispute is Survey No. 42, admeasuring 8 Acres and 21 gunthas (3 Hectares 55 Ares), situated at village Mehun, Taluka Edlabad, District Jalgaon which has been given Block No. 116 after implementation of the consolidation scheme.4. Hari Vithoba Choudhari was the original owner of the land who transferred it in favour of Dattatraya Kulkarni by a registered document dated 16th April, 1941, styled as a conditional sale deed and also placed Dattatraya Kulkarni in possession of the aforesaid prop...
Nurallah KamrudhIn Veljee Vs. Mrs. Veronica Menezes and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR217; 1998(4)BomCR215
ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal. Goa passed on 29th November 1996 in Eviction Appeal No. 27 of 1993 confirming the eviction order dated 30th August 1993 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, North Goa, Panaji in Rent Case No. Rent/ARC/N/1/92. 2. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent No. 1 is the landlady in respect of the suit premises forming part of a building consisting of ground plus one floor standing on Chalta No. 109 of P.T. Sheet No. 35 of City Survey of Panaji The petitioner took the premises under a lease deed dated 8th August 1986 on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. As per the term of the lease the said rent was later on increased to Rs. 600/ - per month. The petitioner took the said premises for 25 years on rent payable on or before the 10th of the month next following. According to the respondent No...
Usv Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(79)LC67Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 45,79,143 and an equal amount as penalty under Section 11AC of CEA. The other application is by the Managing Director of the applicant firm for waiver of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri M.H. Patil, the Id. counsel contended that the applicants are manufacturing medicaments Vitamin A Injections and they were manufacturing the same till 16.2.1994. Thereafter they started clearing the same as generic medicaments from February, 1994. The department initiated proceedings against them and has demanded the duty on the ground that these goods cannot be considered as generic medicaments but to continue to duty as P or P medicaments under sub-heading (sic) 300.10 of the CETA. Show cause notice has been issued by invoking the longer period under Section 11A for the period from 16.2.1994 to 30.6.1996 and the notice is dated 6.11.1996. The demand is hit by limitation since the ...
Basf India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1998
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT404Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for stay filed by the appellant for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 20.52 lakhs approximately and penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs for wrong availment of Modvat credit. In the order impugned in the appeal the Commissioner held that emptying of the drums was an activity of manufacture made by the appellant and he therefore confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 20.52 lakhs approximately and he also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. When the application was taken up for hearing, with the consent of both parties, we have taken up the appeal itself for disposal after waiving pre-deposit.3. The question involved in this appeal is whether emptying of drums by the appellant will amount to manufacture. This question is not res Integra. It has been decided by this Tribunal WRB in the case of Castrol India Ltd. v. C.C.E. -1998 (99) E.L.T. 234 that emptying of drums/barrels of its contents would not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal whi...
Apcotex Lattices Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT882Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs 9.24 lakhs under Sub-rule (6) of Rule 57U; Rs 3.02 lakhs under Section 11AC imposed on the assessee; and penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs under Rule 209A imposed on its factory manager.3. Penalty was imposed on two grounds. The first was that goods were cleared by the assessee in excess of what was declared, since in every bag despatched by it stated to contain 20 kg, actually contained 20.4 kg of the finished product of SB rubber. It is contended on this count that duty was on ad valorem and that therefore (sic) that the excess if any is not of significance of the duty totally payable. Invoices were in terms of bags stated to contain 20 kgs. The second ground for imposition of penalty under Sub-rule (6) of Rule 57U is that assessee had claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act on capital goods received by it and therefore wrongly taken credit. The contention on behalf of the assessee is that Sub-rule (8) of Rule 57R ...
Raipur Mfg. Co. P. Ltd. and Ashoka Vs. the Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC331
1. The appellants in these cses are composite mills. They manufacture cotton yarn which they use captively for manufacture of fabrics. Under rule 96-V and W of Central Excise Rules manufacturer running a composite mills and using the yarn manufactured by him captively for production of fabrics was given an option to follow the special procedure under the Rule 96-V & W and instead of paying excise dyty on captively consumed yarn, it can pay duty at the rate payable on the cotton fabric itself. The appellants had opted to pay duty as per the special procedure. They had filed price lists for the cotton fabric falling under item 19-I of the old Central Excise Tariff which were also approved by the proper officer.2. Proceedings were intiated against the appellants Ashoka Mills by issue of show-cause notice in which it was alleged that the appellants were availing special procedure in respect of cotton yarn used for production of cotton fabrics falling under item 19 CET under Rule 96 of...
Umraosingh Jaisingh Chamargore Vs. the Dean, Medical College, Aurangab ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR810
ORDERA.D. Mane, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner challenges the legality of the decisions of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Appellate Authority.2. The petitioner sought admission to Medical Collage in Marathwada Region. He applied for a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner was admitted as he was listed at Sr. No 1 in the list of successful candidates. The application of the petitioner was, however, forwarded for verification of his claim by the Dean, Medical Collage, Aurangabad, to the Committee appointed by the State Government, which is known as 'Caste Verification Committee'. The petitioner was interviewed with his father.3. The petitioner relied on certain documents in the form of School Leaving Certificate dated 17-8-1984 , service book of his father, extract of birthregister of his father showing the date of birth with his caste was 'Adivasi Thakur', certificate dated 17-7-1982 issued by Taluka Executive Magistrate, Biloli, the caste certificate issued by...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.D. Pendse
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: [2001]250ITR411(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion, out of which question No. (i) is at the instance of the Revenue and questions Nos. (ii) and (iii) are at the instance of the assessee. '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the business carried on by the assessee in 'poultry farming' was an 'industrial undertaking' engaged in manufacturing and production within the meaning of Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim extra-shift allowance in respect of : (i) Cages and equipment, (ii) California type sheds (iii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim double shift allowance in respect of machinery ?' 2. Learned counsel for the pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »