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.
Kolhapur Municipal Corporation Vs. M/S. Kolhapur Wines and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR533; 1999(5)BomCR410; 1999BomCR(Cri)410; (1999)3BOMLR331; 1999CriLJ2545; 1999(1)MhLj828
ORDERDr. Mrs. Pratibha Upasani, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this criminal revision application being aggrieved by the order dated 21-5-1992 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Revision Application filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, quashing the order of issuance of process passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur. 2. I have heard Mr. Paranjape for petitioner and Mr. Galeria, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 3 at length. I have also perused the proceedings. It appears that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on number of occasions took the goods (liquor) within the limits of the Kolhapur City Corporation, without payment of any octroi, which was required to be paid to the petitioner Corporation. The petitioner, therefore, sent notice dated 21-11-1989 to respondents 1 and 2. However, there was no reply from their end. Therefore, second notice was sent to the respondents 1 and 2, However, again, there was silence from respondents 1 and ...
State (Represented by Range Forest Officer) Vs. Shri Rajesh Gaonkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR581
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The case of the petitioner is that a pick-up belonging to the respondent was seized on 7-11-1997 by Range Forest Officer, Mobile Squad, Margao in connection with carrying sawn timber. This wood was being unloaded near the house of one P.N. D'Souza. When the Forest Officials approached near the said vehicle, the vehicle sped away along with part of sawn wood which had not been unloaded. The vehicle was seized and the wood was attached from the vehicle. Some part of the wood was also recovered from the house of the said P.N. D'Souza. The case of the respondent is that the said vehicle was wrongly detained by the Department and was not involved in any forest offence.2. A show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forests as to why the vehicle in question should not be confiscated under section 61(A), Clause 2 of the Indian Forest Act, as amended by Goa Amendment. An application for release of the vehicle was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First ...
Menino Jose Rodrigues Vs. Labour Court, Government of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR758]; (2001)IIILLJ521Bom
R.K. Batta, J.1. The short question for determination in this writ petition is whether the gratuity payable to an employee under Section 39 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Shops and Establishments Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the said Act) can be recovered by filing an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Though before the Labour Court the question was as to whether the establishment of respondent 2 was covered under the said Act, the said challenge has not been pressed before me. The Labour Court had on perusal of the law on the subject, came to the conclusion that the establishment of respondent 2 was a commercial establishment and as such, the said Act was applicable.2. In the application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner had sought recovery of gratuity, recovery of unpaid salary and recovery of illegal deduction, yet the dispute at the time of arguments before this Court was restricted to claim relating to...
Continental Corpn. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC491Tri(Mum.)bai
This is the party's appeal against the impugned order dated 24.1.1995 of Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, praying for setting aside the same, and to hold that the imported goods is not covered under Negative List with consequential relief of refund of fine and penalty.1. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported 9700 kgs. of Balsa Medendron Mukul in 130 bags under Bill of Entry No. 5640 dt.20.5.1993 (IGM No. 960 dated 17.5.1993 per S.S. Vega-Valued at Rs. 48,500/- GIF through CHA No. 11/234. They declared as raw material for agarbathi. The goods were first checked and test report obtained from Deputy Chief Chemist. As per the literature produced by the appellants item appears to be widely used in making of Ayurvedic and unani medicines, and also in perfumes and agarbathi. As per Public Notice No.117 (PN) 92-97 import of any crude drug required for making Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines not included in the list annexed thereto require a licence. The appellant did not s...
Roshanlal B. JaIn and anr. Vs. Cc (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC181Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals are filed by the party against the above captioned impugned order dated 25.5.1993 of the respondent praying for setting aside the same and for such other orders as deemed fit.1.1. The facts of the case are that on a specific information that contraband goods of foreign origin such as VCR, VCP, TV etc. are being stored in specific flats in Hajibaug building near State Bank of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, Vakola, Santacruz (E)t Mumbai-55, officers of the Head quarter Preventive section of Central Excise Collectorate, Mumbai-I visited on 21.10.1989 and searched the flat no. 12A, 14 and 17 on 3rd floor of the said building. Smt. Mitubhai Hiren wife of Shri Shubhkiran Hiren was staying in flat no. 17. On enquiry she stated that the appellant Roshanlal Jain had requested her husband to store some VCR/VCPs in her house. On the search of the said flat, 50 VCR and VCPs of different models of foreign origin were found. They were collectively worth Rs. 5',56,000/-. The appellant...
Newsprint Trading and Sales Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1007Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported three consignments of newsprint under Exim scripts valid inter alia for import of writing and printing paper. On an objection raised by the Custom House that the scripts were not specific for newsprint which could not be categorised as writing and printing paper, the importer took the stand that there had been regular practice of clearance of newsprint against Exim script for printing and writing paper. In the impugned order the Collector has agreed that there was such a regular practice but declined to follow it on the ground that he did not agree with the past practice and that such practice had to be stopped.2. Appellant is absent. Mr. Naresh Thacker requested adjournment on behalf of Mr. V.S. Nankani, Advocate. Having considered the grounds of appeal and also some decisions which were placed before us by Thacker, we do not consider it necessary to adjourn the matter.3. In all six decisions have been placed before us in support of the view that confiscatio...
Asian Techs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC545
1. Application E/3047/98 is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 53.91 approximately of M/s. Asian Tech Ltd. fine of Rs. 5.00 lacs towards redemption of plant and machinery order to be confiscated and penalty under Section 11 AC equal to the duty.2. Application E/3048/98 is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 46.50 lacs on M/s. Geo-Tech Foundation and Construction redemption fine of Rs. 5.00 lacs and penalty under Section 11 AC equal to the duty.3. The common representative for both the applicant says that the duty has been demanded on the ground that reinforced cement concrete girders manufactured being to the contract manufacture by each of the applicants are liable to duty. He says that these girders were manufactured at site during period April, 1994 to February, 1996 by each of the applicant who were contractors to Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. They were manufactured in fulfillment of a contract for building bridges on the railway line. He contends that it was never the intent...
Finolex Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT547Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal for stay, the matter was heard. Since the appeal falls in a narrow compass with the consent of both the parties, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing after waiving the pre-deposit.2. The issue in this case is whether the two invoices dated 31-12-1994 and 31-3-1995 representing the payment of duty is a proper document for availing Modvat credit. Both the lower authorities have denied the Modvat credit on the basis of certain procedural irregularity. In respect of Modvat credit the avowed object of this scheme is that it should prevent the cascading benefit of the duty on the final product.It is not the case of the department that the input was not declared.The input has been received in the factory has been utilised in the manufacture of declared final product. As long as these things are complied with, I do not think the department can unreasonably deny the Modvat credit. In this case, Modvat credit has been denied only on the ground that the invoices are not pr...
Shri Mahesh Chodankar Vs. CaptaIn of Ports Govt. of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR521; 1999(3)BomCR433
ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. By an order dated 14-2-1991, the petitioner was appointed as Incharge Marine Slipway in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. The said post is a Group B non-gazetted post under the Captain of Ports who is respondent No. 1 herein. The order of appointment stated that the petitioner shall be on probation for a period of two years. The petitioner joined the post on 19-3-1991 and as such his probation period would end on 18-3-1993. The petitioner claims that his overall performance during the probation period was reported to be good. He was never informed that his probation period was extended. According to him, it is mandatory on the authorities to communicate to the employee on probation about the extension of the probation period within 8 weeks after the period of probation. Since the petitioner did not receive any communication, he claims that he must be deemed to have completed his probation period successfully. He further claims that he must be also deemed to have bee...
Dilipkumar Nanji Dawda and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR407; 1999BomCR(Cri)407; 1999CriLJ1476
ORDERDr. Mrs. Pratibha Upasani, J. 1. This Criminal Writ Petition is filled by the petitioners (Original accused Nos. 3 and 4), Dilipkumar Nanji Dawda and Manubhai Lalji Nandu, against the order dated 5th October 1991, of framing of charge against five accused, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik Road, in R.C. No. 191/91.2. In the charge, copy of which is annexed as Exh. B at page 70 of the Paper Book, the names of the present petitioners appear at Sr. Nos. 3 and 4. Curiously enough, the complainant has not been made a party respondent and instead, original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 have been made respondents. The Roznama reveals that Mr. Pasbola has been appearing for the petitioners. However, he is not present. Ms. Kamat, Addl. Public Prosecutor appears for the State (Respondent No. 1).3. I have heard Ms. Kamat, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the proceedings. It appears that ad-interim stay of further proceedings in the lowe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »