Mumbai Court July 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.
Rajesh L. Makhija Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC789Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applications are for dispensing with the pre-deposit of Rs. 1.00 lakh which has been imposed on each of these applicants in the impugned order.2. Shri M.H. Patil the ld. Counsel represented applicant Shri Rajesh L.Makhija and Shri D.H. Shah the ld. Counsel appeared for applicant Shri Prakash Kundamal Jain. Shri Patil submitted that the applicant has been imposed penalty only based on his statements and no show cause notice has been issued to the applicant by name but only as a representative of M/s. Gordhan-das Ramchand. He was at the material time looking after his father who was seriously sick who is Proprietor of the firm. The evidence of various chits was also referred to and it was pointed out that in none of them the applicants figure. Therefore, there is no evidence against the applicant and in the absence of show cause notice, no penalty can be imposed. Shri D.H. Shah the ld. Counsel for the applicant contended that no show cause notice has been received at all by this ...
Empire Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT283Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit of duty, penalty and interest.2. Appellant in 1986 filed a declaration under Rule 57G for taking Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of glass bottles. By letter dated 11th July, 1986 the Assistant Collector informed the appellant that inputs listed from Serial 9 to 13 in the declaration are excluded by the Explanation to Rule 57A and disallowed the credit taken. The Collector (Appeals), to whom the assessee went in appeal against this order, vacated this letter for failure of principles of natural justice and directed issue of notice giving opportunity of being heard. Collector's (Appeals) order has not given effect to so far.3. In the meantime, after writing to the Department thrice, the appellant on its own in December, 1996 entered in the RG 23A register Modvat credit equal to the disputed amount. This invited a notice dated 4th June, 1997 from the Departm...
Abs Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT854Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We find that the question for consideration in this appeal is settled by the decision of this Tribunal and therefore proceeded to take up the appeal for disposal after waiving the deposit.2. Appellant manufactures Acrylonitrite Betadiene Styrene (ABS) resin.Some consignments of the goods which it cleared on payment of duty and supplied to customers were returned as not meeting the specifications of the buyers. These goods were returned for reprocessing. It is contended that considerations of technology and economy require the such reprocessing to be in large quantity and therefore these goods had to be mixed with other such material. In view of this requirement the appellant chose not to follow the provisions of Rule 173U which require identification of the goods which are returned for reprocessing.Instead it declared in its 57G declaration ABS moulding powder different grades in natural and colour as an input for the manufacture of ABS moulding powder and accordingly took credit o...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Paras Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC293
1. The respondents in this case are manufacturing Patent or Proprietary Medicines. They packed the tablets in strips of 10 tablets each and these strips are then packed in a small carton, which are packed in coorurugated boxes for selling in the wholesale market. They changed this packing for a short period between October 1989 till 1990 when they used Aristocrat brand 20 inch suit cases instead of corrugated boxes as a sales promotion measure. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise held that the Aristocrat suit-cases are not packing material but travel goods. He therefore confirmed the recovery of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 90,536/- by an order dated 30-4-1991. The Commissioner (Appeals) however allowed the appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order with which the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad is aggrieved.2. Shri K.L. Ramteke the ld. JDR referred to the grounds of appeal and contended that the Aristrocrat suit-cases are not in the nature o...
Shri Madhav Ramchandra Nanivadekar and Another Vs. Special Land Acquis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR465; 1998(4)BomCR171; (1998)3BOMLR25; 1998(3)MhLj349
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and heard both the learned Counsel; Shri Apte for the petitioners and Shri Gokhale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.2. The short point which arises for our consideration is whether, in an inquiry under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is it obligatory on the Land Acquisition Officer to give personal hearing to the citizen, without the citizen having prayed for such a personal hearing. In other words, when in pursuance of the Notice under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, a citizen only files his objections and does not demand a personal hearing though such an opportunity was given to him in writing, is it still necessary to give him personal hearing? A few facts may be stated first.3. What is sought to be challenged in this petition is the acquisition of lands for a public purpose viz. resettlement of persons displaced on account of Kumbhi Project in taluka Gaganbawda, District...
Madhav Raghunath Thatte and Others Vs. Director, Directorate of Town P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR543
ORDERPer A.D. Mane, J.1. In the draft Development Plan, the land Survey No. 52 i.e. City Survey No. 2000/A, present plot No. 44 was shown reserved for stadium and public garden. The Development Plan of City of Shrirampur was finalized and sanctioned by the State Government on 16-8-1975. Thereafter, it appears that the writ land was again reserved for playground in the draft development plan. 2. This writ petition is filed by the owners in possession of the said landon 7-4-1987 inter alia seeking a Writ of Certiorari or a writ order or directionin the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents totreat the petitioner's land as released from the reservation in the Development Plan and further sanction the development permission asked for bythe petitioners along with the letter dated 25-7-1986 at Exhibit D and torestrain the respondents by themselves, their agents or servants by an order of ...
Ramesh S/O Damodhar Deshmukh Vs. Damodhar S/O Domaji Deshmukh and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR586; 1999(1)BomCR863; (1999)1BOMLR392; 1991(1)MhLj153
ORDERD.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Shri Deo, the learned Counsel for the applicant, and Shri Gilda, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 1. None appears for the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, though served. 2. The present applicant/original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 40/ 96 for declaration that the agreement of sale dated 2-2-1996 in between original defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in respect of joint family property, i.e. house bearing Nos. 80, 80/1 to 80/ 4 and open space as well as residential house of the plaintiff is illegal and not binding on any member of the joint family. The suit is also for permanent injunction restraining non-applicant/defendant No. 1 from evicting the plaintiff and his wife and children from the residential place. The applicant had also filed an application for temporary injunction (Exh. 5) before the trial Court and the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division vide order dated 31-8-1996 partly allowed the application (Exh. 5) and the n...
Pandu Kasu Sabale and Others Vs. Laxman Kashinath Kusalkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR186
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition field under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and correctness of the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 31-3-1986 confirming the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Rahuri Division, Ahmednagar on 18-9-85 and the order passed by Additional Tahsildar, Newasa on 3-3-1982.2. Kesu Limba Sable was the original owner of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 2061 admeasuring 3 Hectares 49 acres situated at village Sonai. He vide document dated 17-1-1938, mortgaged the said land with Kashinath Kusalkar for an amount of Rs. 200/- for a period of seven years. The said document was styled as Shartiche Kharedi Khat. The mortgagor Kesu Limba Sable died on 21-1-1940 leaving behind his two sons Pandu and Narayan who also died and the present petitioner are their legal representatives. The mortgagee Kashinath also died and the present respondents are his legal representatives. The mortgage was n...
Narendra Kumar Kochar Vs. Sind Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Societ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR563; 1998(4)BomCR638
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. The principle question in controversy in this petition under Article 226of the Constitution is whether a tenant who has been inducted in a flat by a memberof a co-operative housing society in breach of the bye-laws of the society, can claimprotection under section 15(2) read with section 14(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel andLodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, 'Bombay Rent Act'), and whethera claim filed by the society for ejectment of such member as well as tenant, is adispute touching the business of the society within the meaning of sub-section (1) ofsection 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Co-operative Societies Act').2. Put very briefly, the essential facts are these. The 1st respondent is a co-operative housing society and as such owner of a building known as 'Ashiana', situate at plot No. 6, 10th North-South Road, Andheri, Mumbai. The society was registered in 1968. The 2nd respondent is its member as a co-...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Surendra Kumar Mevalal Mehesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR777; 1998CriLJ3768
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, preferred under section 378(1) Cr.P.C., the State of Maharashtra impugns the judgment and order dated 26-4-1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik in Sessions Case No. 72 of 1984 acquitting the respondent for an offence under section 366 I.P.C.2. In short, the prosecution case as contained in the statement of the prosecutrix is as under:The prosecutrix Nirmala Pandurang Bachke P.W. 1 lived with her parents in the premises of Artillery Centre, Nasik Road. On the date of the incident i.e. 3-1-1984, she was studying in 9th standard in the Central School. About 2/3 days prior to 3-1-1984 her father under the influence of alcohol abused her and her mother. The respondent who lived in the same locality and knew her from before and used to study in the Central school, told herthat since her father was ill-treating her, she should elope with him and he would marry her. On the night of 2-1-1984, he gave her a letter Exhibit 9 mentioning t...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »