Mumbai Court August 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.
Sitaram Atmaram Ramteke Vs. Maroti Motiram Meshram Through Lr. Mansara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR83; 1999(1)BomCR635; 1998(3)MhLj854
ORDERS.D. Gundewar, J.1. By this second appeal, the appellant/plaintiff challenges the judgment and decree passed against him by the learned lower Appellate Court in Reg. Civil Appeal No- 420 of 1981. That appeal was filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed against him by the trial Court in Reg. Civil Suit No. 115 of 1979. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had proved his title and possession over the suit property. As a result, the plaintiffs suit was decreed. In appeal, the lower Appellate Court reversed the said finding of the trial Court holding that the plaintiff was entitled only to the structure standing over the plot in question. In the result, the appeal was partly allowed and the defendant was directed to hand over only thepossession of the structure standing on the plot in question to the plaintiff. It is the said order of the Appellate Court which is under challenge in this appeal.2. Shri Mehadia, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted t...
Shri Babulal Nainmal JaIn Vs. Shri Khimji Ratansha Dedhia and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)174; 1998(4)ALLMR287; 1999(5)BomCR72; 1998CriLJ4750
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the summons issued by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Second Court, Mazagaon in Cri. Case No. 57/W/89. Admittedly the petitioner had issued cheque for Rs. 15,750.92 on 12-6-1989 drawn on Dombivali Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd., Dombivali. The cheque was returned without payment with remarks 'refer to drawer'. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mundargi argues that no offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is disclosed in the light of the averments made in the complaint. To appreciate this argument. It is beneficial to extract the contents of the complaint :'Thereafter the accused persons issued a cheque bearing No. 116-43 dated 12-6-89 for Rs. 15,750.92 drawn on Dombivali Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd., Dombivali but this cheque was not M.F.C.R. Therefore, the complainant society wrote back a register letter dated 14-7-89 to the accused, calling upon the said accused that the said cheq...
The Estate Manager, Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Vs. Bahiru S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR270; 1998(4)BomCR671; 1998(3)MhLj654
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. These three writ petitions raise the same controversy and relate to identical facts and, therefore, all the three petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the facts obtaining in Writ Petition No. 2677 of 1984. According to the case set up by the petitioner after coming into force of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short 'Ceiling Act') certain lands held by the Rattan Sugar Works Ltd., Sakharwadi, Tal. Faltan, District Satara were declared surplus lands. A declaration under section 21(1) of the Ceiling Act was made by Special Deputy Collector (Land Ceiling) on 30-3-1963 and a notification to that effect was published. According to the petitioner, (the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Limited), the State Government permitted them to cultivate these lands and later on these lands were permanently granted to the Corporation. The case of the petit...
Ocean Marine Mutual Insurance Association Ltd. Vs. M.V. wonfu and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Bom18; 1998(4)ALLMR289; 1998(4)BomCR841
ORDERS. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the learned Counsel for the respondents. This Chamber Summons has been taken out by the plaintiffs to implead the respondents as party defendants to this suit. By this Chamber Summons the plaintiffs are seeking a direction that the respondents be ordered and directed to furnish in favour of the Prothonotary and Sr. Master, High Court, Bombay, a security in the sum of 142, 294.90 U.S. $, towards the satisfaction of the plaintiffs claim.2. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs, an Insurance Company which had insured the defendant-vessel viz. m.v. 'WONFU'. It appears that the defendant-vessel was covered by an insurance with the plaintiffs-company to avail of the cover of protection, indemnity, freight, demurrage etc. In this behalf the plaintiffs have raised debit notes against the defendants in the sum of 142, 294.90 U.S. $. The plaintiffs have also sent a demand notice to the defendants. Finally, when the ...
Yashomala Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Tata Ssl Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4350
N.J. Pandya, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 Company is accused No. 1 in Criminal Case No. 1/S of 1997 instituted in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 26th Court. Borivali, Mumbai. The said complaint has been filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as amended in 1988. It relates to a cheque worth Rs. 15.54,370/- drawn on Indian Bank, Kirkee Branch, Pune.2. The dispute between the parties qua the said complaint relates to the jurisdiction of the Court of Mumbai. The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner-company is that the entire sale transactions with the complainant-respondent No. 1-Company had taken place in Pune where the petitioner-Company is situated and respondent No. 1 -Company has its sale office. Developing further the case on the footing of delivery having been effected at Pune, cheque having been issued at Pune by the petitioner-Company and it having been deposited for realisation in the accounts of the complainant-Company at Pune, it...
Pharmchem Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT777Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants imported 20 M.T. of Dicyandiamide (DCDA) declaring the invoice value thereof of US $ 650 P.M.T. C.I.F. Bombay, the supplier was M/s. Inter Export, Hongkong. The goods were of Chinese origin. During the enquiries conducted by the Customs Shri Jitendra Avlani, Proprietor admitted that the prevailing price was US $ 1700 PMT, that the goods were supplied by his brother, that the invoice was raised at a lower value, that the invoice value was remitted through the banking channel and the difference between the actual value and the invoice value was to be paid by him to his brother, who was the owner of M/s. Enter Export in Indian Rupees on his arrival in India. He further stated that a similar enhancement to the extent of US $ 1280 P.M.T. had been made earlier by Madras Customs House for the same goods of the same quantity imported by him. He submitted two invoices under which M/s. Jitendra Avlani, Hongkong had supplied the same goods to M/s. Inter Export at the price of U...
National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. (A)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT806Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applications are for dispensing the pre-deposit of Rs. 7,165/- and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- in Appeal No. E/1605/98-Bom and of another amount Rs. 34,777/- as duty and Rs. 2,500/- penalty in the other Appeal No. E/1609/98-Bom. The learned Counsel Mr. Gunasekaran, for the applicants submits that in the first appeal above said as the amount is small, the applicants would comply with the pre-deposit requirement by freezing the duty and penalty amount in their capital goods Modvat account. As regards the other amount in the second appeal, the learned Counsel submitted that the applicants have obtained parts of knitting machine, which produce circular knitted fabrics and therefore is exempted from the duty. The circular knitted fabric is intermediate product used in the manufacture of final product by the appellants which is PVC Leather cloth cleared on payment of duty. The learned Counsel argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has wrongly applied proviso as Rule ...
Vakharia Valkal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT608Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise, Surat made in Order-in-Original 52/MP/94 dated 2-9-1994 wherein he had ordered payment of duty of Rs. 2,44,559/- and also confiscated the property and levied penalty.2. In July 1991, there was a search conducted in the premises of this appellant for purpose of preventive checks. During the search the statements were recorded from Printing Master as well as the Director of the appellants. A Show Cause Notice was issued dated 15-1-1992 demanding duty etc. The Appellant filed replies. After hearing the parties the adjudicating authority passed the impugned order. Hence the present appeal.3. Shri Mayur Shroff, learned Counsel appeared with Shri Willington, Advocate argued forcefully that the impugned order passed by the Collector is wrong in law. He stated that after the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills case 1995 (80) E.L.T. 507 (Del.), the levy of fine, penalty, and ...
B.S. Containers (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC189Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. B.S. Containers Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the imported Sheets which the importer had declared to be Tin Mill Black Plate (TMBP). The Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay had classified the same as Tin Free Steel (TFS). The import of TFS was restricted and the importers had no licence for import of TFS. The Addl. Collector of Customs, had demanded a duty of Rs. 2.34 lakhs and levied a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- and has imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 45,000/- on the appellants.2. The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 10.12.1991 which had been received in the Registry on 13.3.1992. On 14.8.1998, the appellants had filed an application for permission to produce additional documentary evidence under Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.3. Both the appeals and the miscellaneous application for permission to produce additional documentary evidence came-up for hearing on 21.8.1998. Shr...
Gujarat State Fertilizers and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT52Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the rejection of the claim for refund of duty paid by the appellant on the ground of limitation and unjust enrichment.3. Duty had been paid in pursuance of the order of the Assistant Collector that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Notification 40/85 in respect of ammonia manufactured by it. The Assistant Collector refused the benefit of notification for the reason that ammonia was not used in the manufacture of fertilizer but in the manufacture of molten urea which was in turn used in the manufacture of melamine. On the matter being remanded to the Assistant Collector by the Collector (Appeals), the Assistant Collector reversed his stand and took the view that molten urea being fertilizer, the condition of the notification was fulfilled and that duty was not payable. The duty had been paid pending appeal before Collector (Appeals) in the present case therefore in terms of Section 35F of the Act. In that situation, as has been held by the decisi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »