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.
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Lalit Shankar Khandagale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR783
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This is a petition filed by the State of Maharashtra under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 21.3.1991 where the respondent was discharged from the commission of several offences.2. Heard counsel for the petitioner - State Ms. Usha Kejariwal and Mr. M. K. Kocharekar holding for Shri Shirish Gupte for the respondent. An F.I.R. has been lodged against the respondent along with the accused alleging offence under Section 305, 342, 384, 386. 506/- Pt. II 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25, 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Most of the offences disclosed in this F.I.R. are triable by the Court of Sessions. On an application filed by the respondent for discharge on 4th March, 1991 impugned order has been passed. While passing the order impugned the learned Magistrate has gone into the materials of the case and tried to appreciate the evidence available on record. The learned A. P. P. submits that the...
Gujarat State Fertilizers and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT484Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant filed on 1st March, 1986 a classification list claiming the benefit of Notification 217/86 for oleum manufactured by it to be captively utilised. This classification test was approved, as claimed, in September, 1989 by the intervening period, the appellant paid duty from 1st March, 1986 to 31st December, 1986 at the rate applicable to the product but for the exemption. It filed a claim for refund of the duty so paid on 14th February, 1987. The Assistant Collector [whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals)] held that part of the claim, relating to the duty paid more than six months before 14th February, 1987 was barred by limitation in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 11B of The Act. Hence this appeal.2. In Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 524, this Tribunal basing its decision on the Supreme Court judgment in Samrat International Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561 (S.C.) has held that the claim for re...
Cce and C Vs. Canter Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT941Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad has filed this appeal against the order dated 29-8-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. The respondents were availing Modvat credit under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules. They received inputs dated 1-4-1992 in their factory under the duty paying documents. But the declaration for Modvat credit under Rule 57G was filed by them subsequently on 13-4-1992. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nasik-II under his order dated 4-4-1994 denied the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 24,426/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/-. The appeal against the Assistant Collector's order was disposed of by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune by the impugned order wherein he upheld the Assistant Collector's order by observing that Modvat credit on inputs can be availed of only after filing declaration and obtaining the acknowledgement and that for availing of Modvat credit filing of a declaration is t...
Dhundiraj S/O Devidas Patanagankar/ Gosavi and Others Vs. the State of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR300
ORDERA.D. MANE, J.1. This petition is filed on 24-7-1991 by the legal heirs of one Devidas. The facts narrated in the petition are that the petitioner's father was holding Inam land survey No. 171 admeasuring 11 acres and 2 gunthas situated at Pingali, District Beed. It is stated that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act came into existence and all tenants cultivating the agricultural lands on or before 1950 were held as protected tenants and were declared as statutory owners under section 38-E. According to the petitioner, there was however, no tenant on the disputed land even after the enforcement of the Tenancy Act and the Inamdar continued to be the owner and possessor of the disputed land. It may however, be stated that this possession has been seriously disputed by the respondents relying upon certain documents to show that under section 38-E of the Act, the land was regranted to the tenant respondents. 2. The petitioners however, state that the respondent No. 3 was i...
Marathwada Sarvashramik Sangathan Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR65; 1999(2)BomCR209; [1999(81)FLR452]; (1999)IILLJ226Bom; 1999(3)MhLj37
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Shri S.K. Shelke, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner Union claims the Department of Social Forestry, Government of Maharashtra has been engaging daily rated workers in its plantation farms as well as under various schemes and they are being paid on daily wage basis. It is further contended that the Social Forestry is a scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the dailyrated employees are entitled for the payment of minimum wages as prescribed by the Government of Maharashtra. It is further averred that these daily rated employees were being paid an amount of Rs. 41.20 ps. per day till 13-11-1997 and thereafter the daily rate of wages has been reduced to Rs. 23/-per day. The petitioner Union therefore has approached this Court seeking directions against the State of Maharashtra through the Department of Social Forestry to pay wages at the rate fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.2. On the preliminary point of jurisdi...
Western India Silk Industries and Another Vs. Rajendra Dalmia and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR919
ORDERT.K. Chandra shekhara Das, J. 1. The matter arises out of a complaint filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and others before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court at Esplanade, Bombay being Criminal Case No. 120/S/1991. In the complaint filed by the 1st respondent, it is alleged that the petitioner had issued 11 cheques in favour of M/s Dipak Spinners Ltd. and those cheques were dishonoured. Notice has been sent in compliance with section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act to make the payment within 15 days time. Even after the notice, amount has not been paid and this complaint was filed on 18th March, 1991. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Pradip Mandhyani has inter alia contended that the complaint is vitiated by the non-compliance of section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He submits that the notice sent under section 138(c) was received by the petitioner on 4-3-1991 and complaint was filed on 18th March, 1991. So it...
Mrs. Kavita Vs. B.S. Verma and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR225; 2000BomCR(Cri)225; 1999CriLJ1839
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the issue of Summons by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay 400 007 in Case No. 406/S of 1985.2. I heard Counsel for the petitioner Mr. G. V. Tirodkar and Mr. Mehta for respondent No. 1 and Smt U.V. Kejriwal, A.P.P. for respondent No. 2 State.3. The short question involved in this petition is that whether the complaint in question is maintainable in view of section 195 of Cr.P.C. I have examined the complaint. It is disclosed that on 5-2-1985 warrant of authorization under section 132 of the Income tax Act was issued by the Director of Inspection (Investigation), Unit III(2) Bombay, for the search of the premises of M/s. Business Corporation of India having their address at Himgiri, Peddar Road, Bombay 26. On the strength of that warrant one Shri A.L. Arokiodas, A.D.I. (Investigation) along with some other officers conducted search in the premises of the accused and also statement...
Kishan Swarup Motilal Garg Vs. Shri B.S. Verma and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR813
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the issue of Summons by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay 400 007 in Case No. 407/S of 1985.2. I heard counsel for the Petitioner Mr. G.B. Tirodkar and Mr. Mehta for Respondent No. 1 and Smt. Usha. V. Kejriwal, A. P. P. for Respondent No. 2 State.3. The short question involved in this petition is that whether the complaint in question is maintainable in view of Section 195 of Cr. P.C. I have examined the complaint. It is disclosed that on 5/2/1995 warrant of authorization under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was issued by the Director of Inspection (Investigation), Unit III{2) Bombay, for the search of the premises of M/s. Business Corporation of India having their address at Himgiri, Peddar Road, Bombay 26. On the strength of that warrant one Shri A. L. Arokiodas, A. D. I. (Investigation) along with some other officers conducted search in the premises of the accused and also stat...
Parle Beverages Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR257
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner challenges the prosecution initiated by the Food Inspector, Food and Drug Administration (N.S.) under Section 7(v) of Food Adulteration Rules read with Rule 40(3) of the Said rules punishable under Section 16(i)(a)(ii) and 17 of the said Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alibagh, Raigad, being Cri. Case No. 181 of 1989.2. The main allegation in the complaint made by the complainant Food Inspector is that the Petitioner is manufacturing and selling its product commonly known as 'FROOTI ORANGE DRINK' which does not contain the Vitamin C contents as required under the rule of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The packet contains the ingredients water, sugar, orange Juice, Fruit Pulp, Citric Acid and Vitamin 'C' and it is also claimed that it is ready to serve fruit Drink with Vitamin C. Rule 32 (c) of the Food Adulteration Rules insist that when food item is sold in a packet, lable of the packet should inter alia. Admittedly the...
Premier Auto Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT770Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported a consignment of auto accessories for which they filed Bill of Entry in the Nhava Sheva Custom House on 15-11-1991.The declared value of the goods which were of Taiwan origin was US $ 4,390.40 CIF. The department found that the value declared by the various auto accessories were lower when compared with invoices for similar goods of Taiwan origin available with the Custom House. In this case the appellant did not produce manufacturer's invoices or price-lists. Show cause notice was issued on 17-1-1992 proposing to enhance the value from Rs. 1,15,251/- which was declared by the appellant to Rs. 2,32,345/- alleging under valuation to the extent of Rs. 1,17,094/-. There was also charge of mis-declaration under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. After considering their reply to the show cause notice the Collector of Customs, Nhava Sheva Custom House passed the impugned order in which he held that though the invoices relied upon by the department in support ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »