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.
Flameproof Equipments (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT624Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the captioned order dated 5-9-1991 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of junction boxes etc.falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.Proceedings were initiated against them by show cause notice issued by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Dn. F.II, Mumbai alleging that they have wrongly availed of deemed credit on aluminium castings received by them during February, 1990 to May, 1990 for an amount of Rs. 33,286.63. The deemed credit order of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance dated 1-6-1989 allowed deemed credit on unwrought aluminium falling under Heading 76.01 without producing duty paying documents. The Asstt. Commissioner took the view that aluminium castings are not classifiable under Heading 76.01 but under Heading 76.16. Heading 76.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act covers - unwrought aluminium ingots, billets, wi...
Vishwanath Shipping Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT695Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicants are Custom House Agent. An employee of theirs was involved in April 1994 in a case booked by the Anti-corruption Wing by the CBI. After the applicant became aware of the involvement of his employee, for four months the employment of the employee had continued.Thereafter an enquiry was conducted by the Central Intelligence Unit wherein it was concluded that the CHA failed to exercise due control over the employee. Acting on the enquiry report, the Commissioner passed Order No. 14/97 suspending the licence of the CHA under Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. This application is for stay of the operation of this order and for restoration of the licence.2. Shri Kantawala submits that the Commissioner in not issuing a notice and in not giving opportunity to defend the notice, had violated the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that where the incident had taken place in 1994, the Commissioner need not have taken such an...
Smt. Saroj Mamdani Vs. State of Maharashtra and 3 ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR162
N. Arumugham, J.1. By filing this writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the mother of the detenu by name Karim Kamaluddin Mamdani @ Zahid Hamid Pinwala @ Mustaffa Hassanbhai Lokhandwala @ Rahim impugning the order of detention passed by the Second respondent dated 17.12.1997 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) and quash the same for want of its propriety and legality. Both the order of detention as well as the grounds of detention and the documents referred in Annexures A, B and C respectively were served upon the detenu contemporaneously on the same day.On some specific intelligence, the Officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai intercepted a passenger at the Domestic Airport, Santacruz travelling in the name of Rahim Kamaluddin (i.e. the detenu) who was to board a Sahara Airlines Flight to New Delhi and seized foreign currency and trav...
Sau. Sangeeta W/O Ramesh Ranvir Vs. the Presiding Officer/Tahsildar an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR213; 1999(1)MhLj958
ORDERN.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. The petitioner who was the Sarpanch of the village Suki, tq. Purna, dist. Parbhani challenges a No Confidence Motion which was passed on 19th August, 1998 against her under section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. There is no dispute that the motion was passed by requisite majority. Validity of the motion is challenged in this petition. The validity was challenged before Collector and then before the Commissioner on two grounds viz. (1) that the notice of the said meeting was a proper notice within the meaning of Rule 5(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meetings) Rules, 1959 and (2) that the meeting did not take place in the office of the village panchayat, as provided under sub section (2) of section 35 of the Act and it took place at place other than the office.2. Mr. S.R. Barlinge, learned Counsel for petitioner, submitted that admittedly the notice was served on 18-8-1997 and the meeting took place on 19th August, 1998 i.e. on the next day, th...
Joeffrey Sales and Others Vs. Joao Jose Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)BomCR594
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard Shri R.B. De Sa advocate for the petitioners. This is a revision application against the Order dated 3rd August, 1998 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for allowing the petitioners to examine their witnesses after the closing of the case of the plaintiffs as well as of the defendants in the suit. The only ground on which the application was filed was that the earlier lawyer who was representing the plaintiffs did not inform the plaintiffs before closing the evidence of the plaintiffs and had never informed the plaintiffs to bring any of the witnesses to be examined in the Court.2. Shri R.B. De Sa, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application ignoring the fact that an application to examine the witnesses can be certainly made at any stage of the suit. In fact the trial Court had not passed judgment in the matter and the application was filed before ...
Mohammed Ashraf Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR775
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu Abdulla Abdul Khadir, has impugned the detention order dated 12th March, 1997, passed by respondent No. 2, Shri G.S. Sandhu, the Secretary to the Govt. of Maharashtra, Home Department, (Preventive Detention) and Detaining Authority detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA). The detention order along with the grounds of detention bearing the said date, was contemporaneously served on the detenu on 18.12.1997.2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the grounds of detention are as under:On 18.10.1996 on the basis of prior information the officers of the Customs, Preventive Commissionerate, Mumbai, intercepted the detenu who had cleared the immigration and customs formalities and was on the way to depart t...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT494Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Each of the respondents imported goods stated to be centrifugal gas compressor. Clearance was claimed under an Open General Licence under entry 20(2) of Appendix 1 Part B of the Import Policy 1988-91. The department thought that the goods were air compressors and not gas compressors and that centrifugal air compressors would be covered by Entry 479 of Appendix III Part A had required a licence which was not produced. Notices were accordingly issued. After considering the contentions raised the Collector in his order which framed three questions for consideration. These were whether the goods were centrifugal gas compressors or air compressors; if they were air compressors they would be covered by Entry 20(2) of Appendix 1 Part B or Entry 479 of Appendix 3A and if they were covered by the latter entry whether the fact that they were imported as capital goods would be relevant in deciding whether the goods fell within the scope of Appendix 3 Part A. He found that the goods were air c...
Canara Bank Vs. H.T. Koli and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR370]; (2000)IIILLJ277Bom
1. This is the second round of litigation at the instance of the petitioner-bank. Earlier the petitioner-bank challenged the award, dated (sic) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 in Reference (CGIT)No. 2/48 of 1986 whereby the said Tribunal held that the dismissal of respondent 1 Sri H.T. Koli who was working as Clerk in the petitioner-bank was not justified and directed the petitioner- bank to reinstate respondent 1 with immediate effect with full back-wages and continuity of service. The said award was set aside by this Court on July 11, 1997 and matter was sent back to the concerned Industrial Tribunal for fresh decision as per directions. After remand, respondent 1 was further cross-examined and parties were heard. Then by the present award which is impugned in this writ petition passed on October 15, 1997 the Tribunal again held that the dismissal of respondent 1 herein was not justified and the petitioner-bank has been directed to reinstate respondent 1 wi...
Chandanmal Hiralal Mantri Vs. Iranna Chandrashekhar Harsure and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR776
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition arises out of a complaint made by the first respondent before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ichalkaranji. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant was undertaking the job of weaving in his Powerlooms and runs the business of supplying the weaved cloth to merchants on piece rate. The complainant alleged that the petitioner (the accused in the complaint) used to give yarn to the complainant for converting it into cloth and the wages are fixed at different rates for the different count of yarns. The complaint is that even though the petitioner got finished products of cloth at larger quantity and that excess is not being returned to the complainant. He cited an example that if yarn for 80 metres of cloth is given for weaving and the finished products produced was of 82 yards, then the excess of differences of yarn is not explained in the complaint. Another complaint he has made is that inferior quality yarn are supplie...
The Akhil Mumbai Dudha Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. and 3 ors. Vs. Suda ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR789
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition is challenged against the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court at Girgaum in C. L. No. 26/Misc of 1991, wherein a complaint filed by the first respondent under Section 145(1) of Cr. P.C. has been taken on file and process issued against the petitioner.2. The short facts of the case is that the first respondent was an employee of the petitioner co-operative society. First respondent's complaint is that as an employee of the society he was permitted to occupy an accommodation admeasuring about 500 sq.ft. It is consisting of a hall, bedroom and kitchen. The further allegation made in the complaint is that on 22.12.1990 the petitioner orally terminated the services of the first respondent with effect from 1.1.1991 and he was asked to vacate the premises. It is the case of the first respondent that his services was terminated by the petitioner with an oblique motive to dispose of the property wherein the petitioner was sta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »