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.
Cc Vs. Uni Abex Alloy Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC617Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for determination in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the principle of unjust enrichment is applicable in the case of goods captively consumed.2. We find that in case of Solar Pesticides v. Union of India the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not apply in the case of goods captively consumed by the assessees. Although the Ld. D.R. brings to our attention that the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court has taken contrary view in the case of CC and Ors. V. Indo Swiss Synthetic Gem Manufacturing Company Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1992 (13) RLT 379 (Mad), since the Tribunal has already followed the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides v. U.O.I. (supra) we take the same view in this case also and hold that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present situation covered by these two appeals. Accordingly we uphold the impugned order and reject the Revenue's appeal....
Urisan Cosmetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT724Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 61,200/- and of penalty of Rs. 30,000/-.2. Shri S.V. Yakkudi, the ld. Counsel for the applicants submit that the issue relates to denial of capital goods Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules on air-conditioners used in their plant for the production of hair dye. The ld. Counsel submit that they have a strong case since there are decision of the Tribunal wherein under similar circumstances air-conditioners have been held to be eligible for such credit.3. After hearing the ld. DR Shri S.V. Singh, it is found that the issue is arguable and will have to be decided in the light of the scope of capital goods under Rule 57Q and the function of the air-conditioners in relation to the manufacture of the hair dye in question. This is not permissible in a stay application to go into in detail. Therefore for the purpose of hearing the appeal on merits the applicants are directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 30...
Suvik Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT457Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision dated 24-10-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Original No. 3/Commissioner/Ahd. 11/97 wherein he denied the exemption claimed by the appellants under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986.2. The appellants M/s. Suvik Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the manufacturing of two different and separate class of goods i.e. Medical Instruments classifiable under Chapter 90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and Servo Regulators and UPS which are classifiable under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. It may be stated here that the appellants are a small scale industrial unit claiming exemption under Notification No. 175/86. They were manufacturing goods namely medical instruments which come under Class 10 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and Servo Regulators and UPS which are classifiable under Class 9 of the said Act of 1958. A show-cause notice ...
Leonard J.S. Fernandes and Others Vs. the Canacona Municipal Council, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR535
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. In this Public interest litigation, directions of the Court are sought in relation to constructions put up by respondents No. 5 to 12 near Palolem Beach, Canacona, Goa in violation of Building Laws and Coastal Regulation Zone Notification. The petitioners No. 1 to 5 are living in the area where the violations are alleged to have taken place and petitioner No. 6 Goa Foundation which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act has brought the matter before this Court. The petitioners seek directions to respondent No. 1 to demolish the impugned constructions made by respondents No. 5 to 12 and to fix the responsibility for such violations as well as award exemplary punishment for dereliction of duty on the part of those who are responsible to contain such violations. The matter was heard at length at the admission stage for final disposal.2. The violations alleged are that no construction licences had been obtained and where construction licences wer...
Rajesh Nanaji Morghade Vs. Darshana Rajesh Morghade and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR87; 1999(3)BomCR99; I(1999)DMC517; 1999(1)MhLj327
ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. The respondent No. 1, i.e., Smt. Darshana w/o Rajesh Morghade, filed Petition No. C-20/96 under sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Family Court at Nagpur, in which she claimed maintenance for herself and respondent No. 2, i.e., her son, to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month, from the appellant. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that on 25-12-1994, she got married to the appellant as per the Hindu rites and customs. The respondent No. 1 thereafter was residing with the appellant at his place at New Shukkarwari, Nagpur. The respondent No. 1 initially after marriage was being treated well by the appellant/husband for few days. Mother and sisters of the appellant thereafter started ill-treating the respondent No. 1. The ill-treatment was on account of non-payment of adequate dowry in the marriage. The respondent No. 1 became pregnant in the year 1995 and the fact of pregnancy has be...
Sumangal Veerbahadur Rana Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR191; [2000(84)FLR654]; (2000)ILLJ896Bom
ORDERA.D. Mane, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner in the domestic inquiry. The petitioner submits that he was serving as a Peon in the office of the respondent No. 4 Storage Superintendent, Tirthpuri, District Jalna, since 2-8-1985. On 21-8-1989 the petitioner was suspended by the Joint Managing Director and Secretary of the Maharashtra Warehousing Corporation, Pune, on the charge of misappropriation of one bag of Jawar and one bag of Tur when he was arrested on the same charge by the police of Gandhi Police Station on 21-8-1989. The departmental inquiry was simultaneously proceeded against the petitioner when the criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad, in Criminal Case No. 45 of 1990 for offence under section 381(1) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. In criminal case the petitioner was acquitted by the judgment and order dated 10-5-1994...
Satish Kumar Banwarilal Sharma Vs. Major Virendra D. Ganju
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR471; 1998(4)BomCR175; 1998(3)MhLj211
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. This is a civil revision application filed against the Order dated 28-5-96 passed by the Competent Authority under Bombay Rent Control Act, Nashik Division, Nasik Road. The only point which is sought to be raised by the petitioner is about non maintainability of the eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent on the ground of bona fide requirement in terms of section 13(A)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947, after his retirement from the Military services since the suit premises were acquired by the respondent after his retirement from services. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent retired from the Military services in the month of May-90 and acquired the property in question by Sate Deed dated 16-8-90, and that after his retirement, the eviction proceedings were initiated on the ground of bona fide requirement in terms of section 13(A)(1) of the said Act in the month of ...
Shri Pratapchand Lakhamaji JaIn Vs. Smt. Lilabai Krishnath Surve
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR193; (1998)3BOMLR137; 1998(3)MhLj706
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. By the present civil revision application, the petitioner challenges the Order dated 26-8-96 passed by the Additional District Judge, Raigad, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 57/90, whereby Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the Order dated 12-9-90 passed by the trial Court in R.C.S. No. 143/88. 2. The facts relevant to the present case are as under :- The respondent herein filed Civil Suit being R.C. Suit No. 21/82 for possession of the suit premises under the Transfer of Property Act. The trial Court framed issues therein on 6-3-84 and the case was adjourned for filing of the list of witnesses to 11-4-84. However, no list of witnesses was filed on 11-4-84, and thereafter the case was adjourned for hearing to 14-6-84. Moreover, on 14-6-84 neither the plaintiff nor his Advocate remained present though the Advocate for defendant was present and therefore, the trial Court dismissed the suit for default. Thereafter the respondent ...
AustIn GladwIn Roy Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR542; 1998CriLJ4776
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for possession of 115 grams of charas under section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter called the N.D.P.S. Act) by the Special Judge, Mapusa. The prosecution had examined four witnesses in support of the charge. The appellant was held guilty for possession of 108.6 grams of charas vide impugned judgment dated 20th November, 1997, which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal. The appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lakh, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The period of imprisonment already undergone during the course of investigation and trial was ordered to be set off with effect from 8-5-97.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 8-5-97 P.I. Jadhav (P.W. 4) of Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji, received specific and reliable information that one Roy, who was sta...
Deepak Ganpatrao Salunke Vs. Governor of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR263; 2000(5)BomCR106; 2000BomCR(Cri)106; 1999CriLJ1224
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. The petitioner has contended that he is a social worker and Councillor of Kopargaon Municipal Council (District Ahmednagar). The elections for 12th Parliament were held in February-March, 1998. The respondent No. 6 is the member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Maharashtra and the Home port folio is allotted to him. He was given oath as Deputy Chief Minister. Writ Petition No. 1507/1995 was filed before this Bench wherein it was urged that the Constitution of India only provides for the post of Chief Minister and Ministers and does not provide for the post of Deputy Chief Minister. There is no format of oath for the post of Deputy Chief Minister in the 3rd Schedule of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the appointment and assumption of oath by the respondent No. 6 be nullified bythe writ of co-warranto. In the said writ petition, the present respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 6 were the parties and a submission was made by the respondent Ho. 7, Advocate Gener...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »