Mumbai Court October 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.
Narayan Bapuji Dhotre Deceased Through Legal Representatives and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR385; 2000(2)BomCR133; (2000)1BOMLR483; 2000(1)MhLj495
ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 8-8-1984 passed in Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1981 by the District Judge, Jalna reversing the judgment and decree dated 31-7-1979 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 184 of 1974 by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalna. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant.2. The property in dispute is an agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 94 admeasuring 18 acres and 23 gunthas situated at village Jambwadi Taluka Jalna. According to the plaintiff he is the owner of the suit-land which is his self-acquired property. The plaintiff averred that his brother had filed Special Civil Suit No. 20 of 1962 for partition and possession of the ancestral land of the family and in that suit the suit-land along with other lands were left out to the share of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he was in possession of the suit land. However, the defendant having absolutely no right wrongf...
The National Leather Cloth Manufacturing Co. Vs. Indian Council of Agr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR541; 2000(2)BomCR232; (2000)1BOMLR962; [2000]241ITR482(Bom)
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the notice dated 12th August, 1987 issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') for the assessment year 1983-84. The case of the petitioners is that the conditions precedent for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are absent in this case and hence the notice is wholly without jurisdiction.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as for the respondents. We have perused the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The material facts of the case are as under:In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1983-84, the petitioner company donated a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to one K.M. Scientific Research Centre. The said institution was approved for the purposes of section 35(1)(ii) by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Government of India for a period of one year. The approval was exten...
Alvaro De Noronha Ferreira Vs. General Manager, Telecom Department of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom278; 2000(1)ALLMR523; 2000(2)BomCR736; 2000(2)MhLj515
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner had sent a letter petition complaining of harassment, mental torture and anguish, which he had to suffer on account of casual and careless approach of the employees of the Telephone Department, Panaji. The telephone of the petitioner was dead from 12th June, 1996 to 28th July, 1996, but inspite of that he received Bill dated 1st September, 1996, in which 11 S.T.D. calls were shown to have been made from the said dead telephone between 22nd June, 1996 to 9th July, 1996-the total calls being 234. On 28th July, 1996, the petitioner sent a registered letter to the General Manager of Telecom, Goa, requesting for adjustment of rental corresponding to 46 days when the telephone was dead. In Bill dated 1st September, 1996, no adjustment of rental was made and, instead, 11 S.T.D.calls totalling 234 units were shown to have been made from the said telephone during the period the telephone was dead. From then onwards, the petitioner was made to run from pillar...
Abbas Hakim Vs. M/S. Contract Advertising (India) Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR438; 2000BomCR(Cri)438
ORDERDr. Pratibha Upasani, J. 1. This matter appeared on Board on number of occasions. However, Opponent No. 1 continuously remained absent though duly served.2. The present Criminal Application is filed by the applicant/original accused being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay in Criminal Case No. 51/S of 1991 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.3. Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows:As per the story of the applicant, Applicant and Opponent No. 1 had entered into an agreement dated 18th July, 1990, and by this agreement, the Opponent No. 1 purchased the rights to telecast the T.V. Serial 'Sunehre Warq'. The Opponent No. 1 was to make payment of Rs. 9,10,000/- as per the Schedule of the agreement, but paid only Rs. 1,18,000/-. As the money was not forthcoming, the contract was terminated by the applicant and he returned the cheque by letter dated 23rd August, 19...
Videocon International Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(121)ELT613(Bom)
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner-assessee exported aluminium electrolytic capacitors through 16 shipping bills on 28-10-1991 after the respondent No. 3 had passed an order of clearance of export under Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962. Admittedly, the exported items were exempted from duty and the assessee was entitled for the duty drawback. On lodging the claim for duty drawback the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 14 crores against the said 16 shipping bills. It appears that subsequently the revenue, on investigations, felt that the duty drawback was claimed without complying with the statutory provisions and hence, on 23-6-1992, a demand notice under Rule 14 of the Duty Drawback Rules came to be issued against the assessee. This notice was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1424 of 1992 which was disposed of on 29-6-1992 by granting liberty to the assessee to file an appeal before respondent No. 4 against the demand notice received on certain conditions. T...
Simtools Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC252Tri(Mum.)bai
M/s. Simtools Ltd. has preferred this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. CS-105-95/B.III/4745, dated 21-6-1995 praying for setting aside the same and also the order-in-original dated 5-10-1998 of the Assistant Collector Central Excise, and for the refund of Rs. 18,452.74, and for such other relief as deemed fit. The appeal confines only regarding the input Hydraulic Powerpack on which the Modvat credit is denied.1. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant company manufactures Plate and Bar Working Machinery namely Guillotine Shears, Press Brakes etc., and has filed declaration under Rule 57G, dated 15-5-1986 for availing modvat credit against various inputs, among which hydraulic powerpack is listed in page 1, classificable under Chapter heading 8466.00 which is acknowledged by the Assistant Collector Central Excise Division II, on 19-5-1986. The appellant received the above input from Virat Engg. P. Ltd., Bombay under Central Excise G.P. 1 Sr. No. 32 and 33, dated 1-...
Shri Bhagwati Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT120Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeals taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. Each of the appellants is a manufacturer of sugar. According to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, every sugar mill is required to sell a part (part to be determined by the Central Government) at price fixed by the Government. This is referred to as levy sugar. A number of sugar mills, aggrieved by what they found to be too low a price for levy sugar produced in 1974-75, 1979-80, moved the courts asking for fixation of higher price. The matter terminated in the judgement of the Supreme Court ordering increasing the price of the levy sugar. In accordance with the judgment, the Central Government paid each of the sugar mills the difference between amount already paid and that determined by the Court.3. Consequent to such refixation notices were issued, among others, to the appellant before us, by the Central Excise department. These notices proposed to levy duty on the differential amount receive...
Govind Gulabrao More and Others Vs. Laxman Sahebrao More and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR543; 2000(1)BomCR604; (2000)1BOMLR324; 2000(1)MhLj310
ORDERDr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners/ original defendant Nos. 1 and 2, being aggrieved by the order dated 29th November, 1986 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Pune, below Exhibit 15 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 320 of 1982. By the impugned order, the learned VI Additional District Judge, Pune allowed the said application of the original plaintiffs/present respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and granted permission to them to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, during the pendency of the Appeal with liberty to institute fresh suit in respect of the subject matter on the same cause of action.2. Few facts which are required to be stated to appreciate the controversy, are as follows:Present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 namely Laxman Sahebrao More and Gorakh Sahebrao More filed Regular Civil Suit No. 257 of 1977 for partition and possession, in which, present petitioners were original defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The c...
Shri Anant Mahadeo Godbole Vs. Shri Achut Ganesh Godbole and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR121
1. This L.P.A. arises out of a decision in First Appeal No. 79 of 1980.2. As the whole matter arises on the applicability of the amended provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 we are not entering into the details of the matter.3. Originally a suit was filed, being Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 1973 in the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Alibaug, Dist. Raigad. In course of time the matter came to be settled and purshis were filed on 3/10/1976. Decree came to be passed in that suit pursuant to a compromise on 4th October, 1976.4. Amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure was made on a large scale in 1976 and they were given effect to on and from 1/2/1977.5. But Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 1977 came to be filed by some of the defendants of the Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 1973. A preliminary objection was raised by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. saying that the suit as filed as barred by law.6. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the amended p...
Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT383Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above mentioned COD applications arise out of the same impugned order and are taken up together for disposal. After hearing both the sides, we condone the delay in filing six appeals.2. On hearing Shri Babu Iyer for the applicants and Shri K.L. Ramteke, for the revenue on the stay applications, it appeared that the main appeals themselves could be disposed of at this stage. This was done, after granting unconditional stay and waiver of the amount of duty involved of Rs. 2,66,055.93. The appellants filed classification list indicating manufacture of organic surface active agents and preparations thereof. For the preparations such as emulsifiers, wetting out agents, they sought benefit of entry at Sl. No. 2 of Notification No. 101/66-C.E. as amended which exempted such emulsifiers etc. from payment of duty provided the surface active agents used in the manufacture of such preparations were duty paid. The sample of the product was drawn. The Dy. Chief Chemist gave his opinion as u...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »