Mumbai Court August 1998 Judgments
Smt. Asha Arun Gawli Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR828; 1999CriLJ333
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. This Writ of Habeas Corpus by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner who is the wife of the detenu by name Mr. Arun Gulab Gawali, impugning the order of detention dated 18-9-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, vide D.O. No. 77/PCB/DP/Zone-I/1997, the 2nd respondent herein, detaining Arun Gulab Gawali in the prison by virtue of section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981), as amended by virtue of the Act of 1996, and as approved by the 1st and 3rd respondents, viz. Home Department (Special) No. DDS-1397/1/SPL-3(B) dated 9-9-97 of the Government of Maharashtra and passing the same. Copies of the order above referred, as well as the grounds of detention and the approval of the same by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, were, admittedly, served upon the detenu contemporaneously on 23-9-1997...
Tag this Judgment!Cc Vs. Universal Cans and Containers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC185Tri(Mum.)bai
1.2. The respondents herein imported certain goods. It was felt by the Revenue that they have paid less' duty than what was due on the goods.Therefore, it is alleged that a less charge demand notice was issued to the respondents on 9th August, 1982 by Group D of Custom House Bombay.It is also alleged that reminders were also issued but there was no response from the respondents. Consequently, the demand was confirmed.1.3. On appeal against the said confirmation of demand by the concerned Assistant Collector the respondents herein succeeded. The Collector (Appeals) has held that from the case records it is seen that a less charge demand was issued by Group D of the Custom House on 9th August, 1982 but he has observed that while the date of issue of the less charge demand was within time, there was no indication that it was served on the respondents before 15th August, 1982. The department did not have any dated acknowledgement showing the receipt of the less charge demand by the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Dyestuff Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT535Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the decision dated 21-2-1990 passed by Additional Collector of Customs, Mumbai whereunder he had held that the import of 8 pallets containing spares of filter press by the appellants was unauthorised and he ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 112 of the Customs Act for violation of Section lll(e) of the Customs Act. He levied a fine of Rs. 7 lakhs.2. Appellants were manufacturers of dyes and stuff intermediates and chemicals having their manufacturing units at Kalyan, Boisar and Baroda. The appellants imported spare parts for filter press, covering frames, connecting plates. The contention of the appellants was, they were all spares for filter which is a machinery part, and the appellants claimed it under Appendix 6(1) of the Import Policy. They also claimed that in terms of Paragraph 20(5) of the relevant Import Policy the appellants were entitled to importation of the same. They further contended that Appendix 2 Part B and Appendix 3 Part A d...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Chemicals and Ayurvedic Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT487Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Collector of Customs, Mumbai II by which he has ordered confiscation of 60 M. Tons of Citric Acid Monohydrate valued at Rs. 17,98,107/- under Sections 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act. The appellant have been given an option for redeeming the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs for re-exporting out of India. Penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs has also been imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The facts briefly are that on import the appellant filed Bill of Entry for its clearance dated 12-8-1993 wherein the goods were declared as Citric Acid Monohydrate BP (Food Grade). The Customs House drew the sample of the goods and it was tested and the test report was that the goods did not conform to Indian Pharmacopeia. Show cause Notice was issued to the appellant which culminated in the order of the Collector to confiscation of the goods, as the goods were in Section 10 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act read with Section 111(d)...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vaishnavdevi Steel Alloys Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR14; 1999(4)BomCR41
ORDERA.A. Halbe, President1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Jalna passed in Complaint No. 57/94, directing the appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1,37,500/- with interest thereon plus cost in respect of the damage sustained by the complainant on account of the explosion and fire in the factory of the complainant. The complainant's Steel Alloys Unit is located in the Addl. M.I.D.C. Area at Jalna and registered as a 'Medium Scale Industrial Unit' for manufacturing steel ingots from the raw materials. M.S. Scrap etc. For this purpose, sophisticated induction furnace for melting the industrial scrap is engaged. The said ingot is used as raw material to various re-rolling Mills for making finished rolled products such as flats, round-bars, angles, profiles, sections etc. The total cost of the Project is around Rs. 1.75 Crores. Part of the finances are raised by the loans from the SICOM. The installed capacity of 'Mini Steel Plan' is estimated as 12,000 ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Starit India Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas818(Bom); [2000]242ITR275(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The short but interesting question that arises in this matter is whether capital gains tax payable under Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has precedence over the claims of other secured creditors covered by Section 530 read with Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The company is under liquidation. The workers of the company in liquidation had filed claims for payment of their dues as secured creditors. By order dated August 31, 1996, the court allowed the application and also directed payment of interest. The said order has not been challenged. Thepresent dispute is regarding payment of interest pursuant to the order of this court dated August 31, 1996. On behalf of the Department of Income-tax, Government of India, the same has been opposed on the ground that the department has a preferential right in respect of the properties sold by the liquidator and that the capital gains tax has preference over dues of other secured creditors. The department has c...
Tag this Judgment!Sau Mantabai W/O Janardhan Mendhe Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR412
J.N. Patel, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus and/or direction for quashing and setting aside the election of respondent No. 4 as Sarpanch held on 27.11.1997 in a meeting of Gram Panchayat, Kakda, presided over by the respondent No. 3 who held that the petitioner was not entitled to contest the election and rejected her nomination, which, according to the petitioner, is per se bad and illegal. The petitioner, therefore, seeks direction of this Court that the respondent No. 3 should hold election for the post of Sarpanch immediately.2. The petitioner came to be elected as a Member of the Village Panchayat, Kakda, from Ward No. 1 in open category, in the General Elections held on 25.11.1997. The petitioner claims that she belongs to Other Backward Classes (OBC). It is the case of the petitioner that as per the roster, the post of Sarpanch was reserved for women belonging to OBC category and, therefore, she was entitled to file her nomination and contest the said post. The peti...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sushilabai W/O Ravan Patil Vs. Shri Ravan Elji Patil and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)175; 1999(5)BomCR74; 1998CriLJ4749; I(1999)DMC610
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/wife for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the respondent/husband. Both the courts below rejected her application for maintenance. 2. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the petitioner had filed petition for maintenance earlier and while pending the said petition the parties had compromised and executed an agreement on 14-11-1975 where by the petitioner had received Rs. 7500/- in lieu of maintenance and she had agreed that she will not claim further for any maintenance from the respondent/husband. In view of this agreement the petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate in Misc. Application No. 91 of 1987 was dismissed as the petitioner had surrendered the right to get maintenance under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as per that agreement. Against that order the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No. 245 of 1989 which was also dismissed ...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Shankarrao Ghorge Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR77; I(1999)DMC691
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months more and he has also been convicted under section 498-A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month more by Additional Sessions Judge, Satara. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that P.W. No. 2's (Shamrao Dhondiba Wagh) daughter Ujvala was given in marriage to accused Satish on 24-5-1987. Accused Satish had started harassing and ill-treating deceased Ujvala and demanding an amount of Rs. 2000/- for his tempo. The accused wanted to purchase a new tempo or wanted to repair his old tempo by that amount. In January 1988 deceased Ujvala had informed her parents that she had a fall from the cot and she had sustaine...
Tag this Judgment!Agyarani Dua Vs. Vidyagauri J. Tripati and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR521; 1998(4)BomCR844; 1998(3)MhLj797
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. By this Notice of Motion taken out by the defendants it is prayed that plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. being barred by law of limitation.2. The plaintiff in the suit has prayed for declaration that the agreement dated 24-11-1984 be declared to have been abdicated and/or given up or in the alternative it be declared that the said agreement for sale dated 24-11-1984 is void/void able for want of consideration and for not abiding by the material terms thereof and therefore illegal, bad in law and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also sought the relief that the defendants being trespassers be ordered and decreed to hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises i.e. flat No. 12, Building No. 24, Ashish Co-operative Housing Society, Guru Nagar, J.P. Road., Andheri (West), Bombay. In the alternative, the plaintiff has prayed for decree of Rs. 3,71,000/-together with interest on the said principal sum at the rate o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »