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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sterlite Inds. (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC286
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, against the order dated 28.9.94 passed by the Collr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. The respondent manufactures copper rod from copper scrap. Sometimes copper rods supplied by them are rejected by the customers due to certain defects. On receipt of such rejected copper rods the appellant filed intimation regarding the receipt of such duty paid goods as required under Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules.Thereafter they were re-charged into furnace, melted, cast and rolled to make new copper rods of the same diameter and specification as those described for remaking and thereafter they were removed without payment of duty which is permissible under 173H of Central Excise Rules.Show-cause Notice was issued on 2.8.93 on the ground that remaking carried out on the rejected rods amounted to manufacture as the rejected goods were mixed with fresh raw materials, melted in furnace and new rod manufactured. The Jurisdictiona...
Shri Kashinath Damu Gavate and Others Vs. Damu Bala Kapase
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR419; 1999(1)BomCR148
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 31-7-1984 whereby the Tribunal set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, Niphad Division, Nasik dated 8-9-1981.2. The short controversy involved in the writ petition is whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of Assistant Collector dated 8-9-1981 in Appeal filed under section 74 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act) whereby the Assistant Collector dismissed the appeal challenging the order dated 15-7-1957 on the ground that appeal was preferred after 24 years. The facts on summation are : One Damu Sakharam Gavate was the owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 316/2, admeasuring 6 Acres, 12 gunthas situated at village Niphad, in Nasik District. The said Damu Gavate died on 19-11-1954 leaving behind the present petitioners as owners of the said agricultura...
Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Vs. Shahuwadi Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Kh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR261; 1999(1)BomCR143; (1998)3BOMLR600; 1998(3)MhLj648
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. These two writ petitions involve common question of law relating to sections 91 and 92 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and, therefore, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by common order.2. For the sake of convenience I intend to refer to the facts of Writ Petition No. 2640 of 1984. The petitioner is the original disputant under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'Co-operative Societies Act'). The disputant is registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. The respondent No. 1 is also a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and respondent No. 2 is the District Central Co-operative Bank which too is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. It is the case of the disputant that it carries on business in wholesale of fertilisers. The disputant appointed the respondent No. 1 as sub seller of the fertilisers as per the terms and conditions ...
Messers Duke Offshore Limited Vs. Burns Standard Company Ltd. and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR371
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. By this petition the petitioners had sought a declaration that an arbitral dispute exists between the petitioners and the respondents and during the pendency of the arbitral dispute prayed that the respondent No. 1 be restrained from invoking the advance bank guarantee as also another bank guarantee. This Court by order dated 18th February, 1998 was pleased to direct the parties to maintain status quo. By order dated April 15, 1998 this Court decided the issue. Considering the terms of the contract, as to whether this Court would have jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court answered in the affirmative that this Court has jurisdiction. The Court further directed that the status quo ante as granted earlier to continue until further orders. The respondents against the said order preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India. The said Special Leave Petition was disposed of on August 17, 1998 by the following order :--- ...
Dr. Manmohan J. Porobo Dessai Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR381
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis pending selection of suitable candidates from the Employment Exchange to the post of Assistant Medical Officer on 9-8-1962 in the pay scale of Rs. 335-15-425. According to the petitioner, the pay of Assistant Medical Officer was covered by letter 'N' and carried pay of Rs. 483.33, but he was paid in the scale of Rs. 335-15-425. On representations made by various employees, the Government considered the cases of various persons holding absorbed posts and fixed their pay in terms of The Goa, Daman and Diu (Absorbed Employees) Act, 1965, (hereinafter called the said Act) and The Goa, Daman Diu (Absorbed Employees Conditions of Service) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter called the said Rules). By order dated 23-3-1988 the Government refixed the pay of Dr. R.S. Narvenkar at Rs. 531.66. Likewise, the pay of one Antonio Pedro Crasto who was appointed against the absorbed post on 10-5-1963 was also protected. The petitioner who reti...
Gyoki Masajuki Maeda Vs. Aisha Constructions and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR533
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This is a Revision Application against the Order dated 12th November, 1997, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, in Regular Civil Suit No. 155/96/D. By the impugned Order, the Trial Court has rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C., on two grounds namely the suit is barred under Section 4 of Benami Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the said Act) and that the Plaintiff has violated the provisions of Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter called FERA).2. At the outset, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents fairly conceded that the plaint could not have been rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. in the case in hand on the ground of violation of provisions of Section 31 of FERA and that the point regarding such violation of the provisions of FERA can be considered only at the final disposal of the suit. Therefore, as far as the order pertains to the rejection of t...
Gujarat State Fertilizers and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT486Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both the sides, the request in the Misc. application for early hearing is granted. Considering the fact the issue involved in this appeal is covered by precedent decision of the Tribunal, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. After hearing the ld. Counsel Shri W. Christian for the appellants and Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. DR for the department, it is seen that the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Vadodara in the impugned order has denied capital goods Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules on stainless steel pipes on the ground that these are for conveying liquid and the function of these pipes shows that they are not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product. As explained by the ld. Counsel for the appellants, the pipes in this case are used for interconnecting different equipments and machinery like reactors, scrubbers, heat exchangers etc. lo...
Cce Vs. Mutual Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC141Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is filed by the Collector Central Excise, Bombay against the order of remand passed by the Collector (Appeals) Bombay on 268/91 dt. 22.7.1991.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of control unit components assembled and control unit carrying cases, filed two price lists in part II, one for components effective from 28.8.1989 declaring assessable value at Rs. 160/- per unit and the other for carrying cases effective from 6.10.1989 declaring assessable value as Rs. 75/- per unit. The price lists were duly approved on 30.10.1989 and 29.12.1989 respectively. Subsequently, respondent filed price list No. 65 dt.6.1.1990 in part II for both components and cases, reducing the price by Rs, 16.84 per unit and Rs. 7/- per unit respectively. The revised price list was duly approved. Meanwhile, respondent cleared these excisable goods during the period from 28.8.1989 to 31.12.1989 on the original higher prices and paying Central Excise duty on such higher prices. Subsequently t...
Shri Vijaykumar Balkrishna Kulkarni Vs. Shri Shiva Rama Anekar Since D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR138
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner is the original landlord of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 134/6 and 165/10-B situated at Kandgaon, Taluka Karvir,District Kolhapur and by this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, he seeks to impugn the order dated 12th June 1984 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur whereby it allowed the original tenant's Revision Application and set aside the order of the Deputy Collector dated 22nd August 1983.2. The facts which are essential for the disposal of the writ petition are in a narrow compass.3. The original landlord was born on 17th December, 1955. In the family partition dated 28th July 1956 the said properties fell in the share of the petitioner who was minor and he thus became the landlord. Shiva Rama Anekar, the respondent since deceased, now represented by legal representatives, was the tenant in the said land and on 1st April 1957, i.e. the Tiller's Day, he was in possession of the said land as tena...
Shri Shadab S/O Siddiq Khan Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca and Others.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR76; 1998CriLJ4348; 1999(1)MhLj63
ORDERPer Vishnu Sahai, J1. Through this petition, preferred under Article 226of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the detention order dated 16th December, 1997 issued by the respondent No. 1 R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai detaining him under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) Amendment 1996. The detention order along with the grounds of detention bearing the same date, true copies of which are annexed as Exhibits A and B respectively to the petition, was served on the petitioner on 1st January, 1998.2. We have heard Mr. U.N. Tripathi for the petitioner and Mr. R.L. Patil Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Since this petition would succeed on a legal ground (Ground No. 6-A of the petition) we are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner contained in the grounds of detention.3. Ground No. 6-A in sho...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›