Mumbai Court September 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.
Associated Business Enterprises Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC752Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in the Appeal is whether the Depot expenses are to be dedicated from the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.2. When the matter was called, none was present on behalf of the appellants and the notice issued to the appellants has been received back from the Postal authorities. We heard Shri K. Srivastava, Ld. SDR who submitted that the matter regarding inclusion of depot expenses has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Government of India v.Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. 1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC) : 1995 (58) ECR 385 (SC).3. The issue involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R.F. case (supra) has held that the expenses on maintenance and running of depots are on the same par as aftersale service charges and advertisement charges and hence cannot be deducted from the price. Following the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order ...
Shankarrao Dattatraya Kalyankar Vs. Vishwasrao Dadasaheb Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR409; 1999(1)BomCR161; 1998(3)MhLj722
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The concurrent judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below granting tenant's eviction from the disputed premises on the ground that he had acquired vacant possession of a suitable accommodation is under challenge by the tenant.2. For the sake of convenience, I intend to refer hereinafter the petitioner as tenant and the respondent as landlord. The landlord let out the premises in question which comprise of 3 rooms on the ground floor of S.T. No. 1272 in 'D' Ward of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. Accordingly to the landlord, the tenant was liable to pay the electricity charges at the rate of Rs. 7/- per month. The tenant did not pay the rent for the months from September 1975 to 1977 and also did not pay the electricity charges. According to the landlord, the tenant also did not pay permitted increases for 3 years and therefore the tenant's tenancy was terminated and the tenant was asked to make the payment of arrears of rent, ...
Ankush Keshav Bowledkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR165
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 15th April 1983 affirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Private Forests, Sawantwadi on 14th January 1982.2. The petitioner claims to be a contractor dealing in forest material. He took contracts of cutting and supplying timber, fire-wood, charcoal and other forest produce with Shri Yeshwant Govind Gawade and others. The land comprises of Survey Nos. 18, 36/1, 68/1, 29/1, 30/1, 69/1, 70/1 and 71/1 totalling nearly 442.14 hectares. It is the petitioner's case that pursuant to the Agreement dated 5th February 1973, he started cutting trees after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities. The case of the petitioner is that the owners of the land aforestated received undated notices by ordinary post under section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act. Before the said notices were served, on 6th September 1975 the Maharashtra Private Forests ...
Dr. Wilfred A. De Souza and others Vs. Shri Tomazinho Cardozo Hon'ble ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR594
ORDERR.K. Batta, J. 1. The petitioners have invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on account of common judgment dated 14th August, 1998, passed by the Speaker of Goa Legislative Assemblyin Disqualification Petition No. 1/1998 filed by respondent No. 2 and in Disqualification Petition No. 2/1998 filed by respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioners have been disqualified with effect from 27-7-98 from the membership of Legislative Assembly of Goa in terms of Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India, as a result of their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Both these disqualification petitions were filed on 27-7-98. At the relevant time respondent No. 2 was Chief Minister of Goa and respondent No. 3 was Minister in the Cabinet. 2. In the Disqualification Petition No. 1/98, filed by respondent No. 2 it was stated that the present petitioners had submitted an intimation dated 27-7-98 to the Speaker and in the said intimat...
Vinay Bubna Vs. Yogesh Mehta and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR129; 1998(4)BomCR849
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioner in this petition impugns the award dated 22nd January, 1998. The Award is challenged on several grounds. The principal contention is that theconstitution of the Arbitral Tribunal was contrary to section 10 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Arbitration Act, 1996), is contrary to the provisions. Similar points have been raised in various other petitions which came up before me. In that light, on 4th August, 1998 by an order the petitioner was also directed to join the Bombay Stock Exchange as party-respondent in the proceedings as the issue involves the Bombay Stock Exchange who were referring the matters to arbitration based on their Bye-laws. As similar point also arose in the other petitions Counsel appearing in other proceedings were also allowed to intervene and advance arguments in the present petition. By notice dated 4th August, 1998 parties were also informed that the petition would be finally dispo...
Shri Naru B. Shetkar Vs. Vishram Jaya Shetkar Alias Manohar Jaya Shetk ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR544
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This is a revision application against the Order dated 21st April, 1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Quepem dismissing the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code by the petitioner. The said application was filed at the stage when the recording of the evidence of the plaintiffs was completed and the matter was fixed for recording of defence evidence. The petitioner is the defendant in the said suit bearing No. 83/1992/B.Tne suit has been filed by the respondents for damages on the ground that the respondents had suffered loss on account of vexatious proceedings initiated by the petitioner in the Court of Mamlatdar of Quepem against the respondents.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the suit has been filed by the respondents on the ground that the property wherein the respondents wanted to construct the house belongs to the respondents, whereas, in the course of evidence produced by the respondents, it has come...
Shri Harish Chawla Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR25
N. Arumugham, J.1. By virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner, who is the brother of detenu by name Anil Chawla @ Kamal Idnani, who is detained by order passed by the 2nd Respondent namely. The Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, the Detaining Authority, dated 8.10.1997 bearing No. PSA 1297/47 SPL 3(A), under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, impugning the said detention order on the grounds specified in the Writ Petition and prayed to quash and set aside the same.2. The detenu Anil Chawla @ Kamal Idnani along with one Mr. Kishore B. Behrani were intercepted by the Narcotic Cell, Customs Preventive Functionary, just before 0100 hours on 12.12.1996 after getting the specific intelligence while both of them were in the process of boarding the flight No. AI-446 due for Bangalore at departure mode at Bombay on that day. On examination of ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Supreme Woollen Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT453Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal has been filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay against the appellate order dated 29-4-1994 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The respondents in this case imported a consignment of goods declared as completely premutilated Woollen/Synthetic Rags for the clearance of which they filed Bill of Entry on 27-1-1993 in the Bombay Customs House against the import under OGL against para 22 of the Exim Policy 1992-97. The goods were examined and it was found that 1,022 kgs. out of the total quantity of 22,010 kgs. imported were complete serviceable garments, while the rest of the goods were completely premutilated goods as per the Notification No. 60/88 by the Customs House. Proceedings were initiated against the respondents for mis-declaration under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, and the Assistant Collector of Customs Group-Ill ordered confiscation of the goods and gave the option of redemption the same on payment of fine of Rs. 17,500/- and directed the clearanc...
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Rajgir Builders
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)70ITD226(Mum.)
1. These cross appeals one by the assessee and the other by the revenue for the assessment year 1989-90 are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The revenue has raised the following grounds :- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) XIV, Bombay has erred in allowing relief for the addition made for provision for cost of construction of building No. 9 at Kalpak Estate (Wadala) to the tune of Rs. 23,73,685. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) XIV, Bombay has further erred in allowing relief for the addition made under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 2,00,000." 2. The assessee-firm is a builder. On 09-04-1986; it entered into an agreement with M/s. Kalpak Development Corporation to construct building and flats for them in Wings B-8, B-9, B-11 & B-12 and also a shopping centre. The assessee was to take and appropriate sale proceeds of 57 flats and balance flats in W...
Oil and Natural Gas Commission Now Called Oil and Natural Gas Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR430; 1999(1)BomCR4; [1999]236ITR544(Bom)
ORDERA.P. Shah J.1. By the present petition under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the petitioner is seeking to set aside the award dated 25th January, 1995 passed by the Umpire, Shri M.N. Chandurkar (retired Chief Justice). 2. The short facts concerning the arbitration award in question may be stated as follows. The petitioner is a statutory public sector corporation engaged in oil exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas. On 6th April, 1985, the petitioner published a tender notice inviting tenders from qualified marine construction contractors. The scope of work for which ONGC sought bids included the design, engineering, procurement, fabrication, inspection, testing, load-out seafastening, tow-out, transportation, installation and pre-commissioning of the BB and BD wellhead platforms as well as optional pipelines and associated risers. Pursuant to the said tender notice, the respondent submitted a bid which was accepted by the petitioner and the contra...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »