Mumbai Court January 1999 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.
Shri Bharatlal R. Halwai Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR525; 1999(3)MhLj140
ORDERR.K. Batta, J. 1. The petitioner was granted licence for Non-Prohibited Bore Rifle S.B.B.L. for a period of one year i.e. upto 30th September, 1991. The petitioner applied for renewal of the said licence on 25-10-91. After calling Police Report, respondent No. 2 rejected the application for renewal of licence vide letter dated 8th February, 1993. By this Order, the petitioner was required to deposit the weapon either with the officer-in-charge of VascoPolice Station or with the dealer holding licence in Form XIV and dispose of the weapon as per section 21 of the Arms Act, 1959 within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the said weapon would be forfeited to the Government. The weapon was deposited by the petitioner within the given time limit. The petitioner sought for grounds of rejection and was informed vide letter dated 16-3-93 that the request for renewal of licence was rejected on account of the adverse Police Report. The petitioner chall...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Estienne Andre,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR422(Bom)
1. These are applications of the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The facts and circumstances and the proposed question are identical in all these applications. In fact, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has disposed of all the applications under Section 256(1) by a common order. We have, therefore, taken up these applications for hearing together. The question of law proposed to be referred to this court for opinion is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that as per Article XIV of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and France, the assessee was not liable to be taxed in respect of salary paid in France for the asses-see's stay in France without appreciating the fact that the contract for services between the assessee and Spie Capag is for the services rendered in India and payment is for services rendered in India which is the contracting state for...
Alka Vs. Vardhaman @ Pushkaraj @ Narendra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1999
Reported in: II(2001)DMC331
S.B. Mhase, J.1. These two civil revision applications have been filed by the wife and husband respectively against each other challenging the order passed below Exhibit 10 from H.M.P. No. 19 of 1988. By the said order, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, has allowed the application of the wife i.e. the petitioner in C.R.A. No. 966 of 1989 by directing to pay Rs. 800/- towards the expenses of the of the litigation and Rs. 200/- per month towards interim maintenance to the wife w.e.f. 20.4.1988 i.e., the date of the application. And the payments of these were made as condition precedent for the purposes of the progress of the said proceeding. The wife has challenged this order dissatisfied with the inadequate amount of maintenance being awarded to her. The Civil Revision Application No. 211 of 1990 has been filed by the husband contending that the amount granted by the Trial Court is exorbitant and in fact the Trial Court should not have granted any interim alimony to the wife.2....
Bharatlal R. Halwal Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR77; 2000CriLJ2404
R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner was granted licence for Non-Prohibited Bore Rifle S.B.B.L. for a period of one year i.e. up to 30th September, 1991. The petitioner applied for renewal of the said licence on 25-10-1991. After calling Police Report, respondent No. 2 rejected the application for renewal of licence vide letter dated 8th February, 1993. By this order, the petitioner was required to deposit the weapon either with the Officer-in-Charge of Vasco Police Station or with the dealer holding licence in Form XIV and dispose of the weapon as per Section 21 of the Arms Act, 1959 within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the said weapon would be forfeited to the Government. The weapon was deposited by the petitioner within the given time limit. The petitioner sought for grounds of rejection and was informed vide letter dated 16-3-1993 that the request for renewal of licence was rejected on account of the adverse Police Report. The petitioner chall...
Ceat Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(106)ELT308(Bom)
1. Rule. Respondents waive service.2. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. The 1st petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1958. The 1st petitioner imported raw material under the Duty Exemption Scheme (DES) under various advance licences without payment of duty of customs or the additional duty of customs. The Octroi Authorities of BMC added to the assessable value as declared by the 1st petitioner the notional amount of additional customs duty and special additional customs duty which was exempted. This action of the Corporation is impugned in the present petition.4. Mr. Bharucha, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that levy of octroi on the notional additional duty of customs/special additional duty by the Corporation is completely without jurisdiction. Mr. Bharucha relied upon an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. and Anr. v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. ...
Telecom Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(65)ECC377; 1999(111)ELT691(Bom)
ORDER1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai dated 28th December 1998, by which the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai rejected the prayer of the petitioner for dispensation of the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount of duty, etc. as a pre-condition for admission of the appeal and directed the petitioner to deposit entire disputed demand within four weeks from the date of the order.2. We have heard Mr. Wasnik, learned Counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the respondents. Both the learned Counsels are agreed that in view of the limited nature of the controversy in this case, this writ petition should be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Hence, rule. Returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, writ petition taken on board for hearing and final disposal.3. Mr. Wasnik, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Estienne Andre and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Bom)306
BY TRE COURT:These are applications of the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act').The facts and circumstances and the proposed question are identical in all these applications. In fact, the Tribunal has disposed of all the applications under s. 256(1) by a common order. We have, therefore, taken up these applications for hearing together. The question of law proposed to be referred to this Court for opinion is as under 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that as per art. XIV of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation (DTAA) between India and France, the assessee was not liable to be taxed in respect of salary paid in France for the assessee's stay in France without appreciating the fact that the contract for services between the assessee and M/s Spie Capag ' is for the services, rendered in India and payment is for services rendered in India which is the . contracting State for the assessee ?2. We hav...
Shailesh D. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: (2006)STR29
1. The appellant/applicant has filed the stay application praying for staying the impugned order pending disposal of the appeal, on the ground that he has already paid the service tax, and also the penalty imposed in the orders-in-original. He has challenged the jurisdiction of the impugned order contending that Section 85 does not provide for an appeal by the department under the Service Tax Act (sic). The penalty is increased from Rs. 9,200/- to Rs. 82,400/-Rs. 82,500/- and the enhancement of penalty is a great hardship in view of the fire accident in the premises of the appellant.2. The ld. JDR has urged that there is a abnormal delay in filing the return to the extent of one year and the enhancement of the penalty in the impugned order is proper and correct. Section 85 of the Service Tax Act (sic), provides for the appeal by the department also. Since the applicant has accepted the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and has deposited the penalty amount and also service tax, he i...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Zenith Rubber and Plastic Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT527Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the decision of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay made in Order-in-Appeal No.PCJ-556/Bom. III/94, dated 10th October, 1994 whereunder he held that the assessee had informed availing of Modvat credit and even though he filed declaration afterwards. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of rubber articles and availed Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 11,100/- without filing of declaration as required under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. The Collector in the appellate order has held that the assessee had informed the 19-1-1988 which was before taking the credit. The action on the assessee's part that they did not file declaration in a proper form would not itself entitle to claim the credit. Hence the appeal by the Department.2. I have heard the ld. JDR. Respondent is not present in spite of issue of notice.3. In the grounds of appeal it is stated by the Department that the letter dated 19-1-1988 referred to by the Collector (Ap...
M/S. Dan Bunkering Ltd. and Another (A. and V. A.J.) Vs. M.V. Bercy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR9; 1999(2)BomCR294
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. The plaintiffs in both the suits are different, however, the defendants vessel is same. Advocates for the plaintiffs and defendants are common. Issue involved in both these motions is also common, and therefore, both the motions were heard together, and I am passing a common order.2. In both the suits the defendants vessel m.v. Bercy was arrested as per Judge's Order passed. The defendants were directed to deposit in the Court a sum of US Dollars 109, 158=59 in Admiralty Suit No. 108 of 1996 with future interest at the rate of 1.5% per month on the principal amount of US Dollars 103, 762=92 from the date of the suit till payment inclusive of costs of arrest of the vessel and sheriff poundage etc. or defendants was given choice to furnish security for the amount aggregating to US Dollars 109, 158=59 to the satisfaction of Admiralty Registrar towards the plaintiffs' claim, costs and sheriff poundage. On complying either of these conditions it was directed that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »