Mumbai Court March 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.
Anand Narayan Mallav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR612; 1999BomCR(Cri)612; 1999(2)MhLj839
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 3rd March, 1995, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 225 of 1994, convicting and sentencing him in the manner stated hereinafter :-- '(i) under section 302 I.P.C. to imprisonment for life; AND (ii) under sections 324 and 323 I.P.C. to undergo three months R.I. on each count.' The substantive sentences of the appellant were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In short the prosecution case runs as under: The informant Narayan Mallav (P.W. 2) is the father of the appellant. Narayan Mallav had a son elder to the appellant named Dattatraya, the deceased. Kaushalya Mallav (not examined) is the wife of Narayan Mallav and Kamini Dattatraya Mallav (P.W. 7) is the widow of the deceased Dattatraya. The said persons resided jointly in House No. 9/194 in Raviwar Peth in the town of Solapur. At the time of incident Dattatraya was employed as a Typist-cum-Clerk in the ...
Shri Shayam Dattatray Beturkar Vs. the Special Executive Magistrate an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR726; (1999)3BOMLR46; 1999CriLJ2676; 1999(3)MhLj197
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Toraskar appearing for the petitioner Smt. Usha Kejariwal, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State of Maharashtra as respondent No. 3, Mr. A.G. Nirmal, Sub-Inspector in his individual capacity as respondent No. 2 and the Special Executive Magistrate, Kalyan in his official capacity as respondent No. 1.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing chapter proceedings initiated against him by the respondents for his forthwith release and for claiming compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for his illegal detention and for other reliefs.3. It was contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a resident of Kalyan, that he is a law abiding and peace loving citizen, but Bazarpeth Police Station, Kalyan has been using provisions of Criminal Procedure Code to arrest and detain the petitioner as and when they like and they are doing this in contravention of the provisions of Criminal ProcedureCode and the right of freedom guaranteed b...
Ashok Yashwant Aware Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR314; 2000BomCR(Cri)314; 1999(3)MhLj225
ORDERDr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This criminal revision application is filed by the petitioner/original accused, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9th December, 1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nashik, dismissing the appeal of the appellant. 2. The petitioner/original accused was charged for the offence punishable under section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The facts which are required to be stated are as follows: There was a Bhajan Programme going on in the Village Shirwade on 25th August, 1988. P.W.1 Police Constable No. 280 Gangadhar Pelmahale and P.W.3 Police Head Constable No. 1163 Bagul were on bandobast duty at the village, as there was Harinam Saptaha. On that day, at about 6.30 p.m. the accused came over to the spot where the said Harinam Saptaha programme was going on, and he was shouting in loud voice and was behaving in a disorderly manner. The constable therefore, caught hold of him and found that he was under the influence of alcohol. Two witne...
State of Maharashtra Vs. PravIn Premji Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR692
ORDERDr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application is directed against the order dated 14th August, 1992 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, VI Court, Mazgaon, Bombay allowing the application of discharge made by the respondent/original accused Pravin Premji Shah. The said accused was charged for offences under sections 18(c) read with Rule 65(3)(4), section 18(b) read with Rule 36, both punishable under section 27(d), and section 18-A punishable under section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('the Act')2. Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows :---The complainant Mr. A.G. Udhoji who is a Drugs Inspector appointed under section 21 of the Act 1940 filed complaint against the accused for the above mentioned offences. Accused is a proprietor of M/s. Manish Medicals, Shop No. 14, Laxmidas Wadi, 258, Sane Guruji Road, Bombay-400011 and the accused holds licences in Form No. 20 No. C-11/148, and 21 No. C-11/149 both dated 31st October, 1983...
Sanjay @ Gangadhar Vishvarup Shelke and Another Vs. State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR684
ORDERSmt. Ranjana Desai, J.1. The appellants-original Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1997 for offences punishable under sections 396 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code.2. By the judgment and order dated 18th November, 1997, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for offence under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default they were to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. The learned Judge also convicted the accused for offence under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for six months. The accused were acquitted of the offence under section 397 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence the appellants have approached this Court, by preferring the present appeal. For the sake of convenience the ap...
Baliram Padmakar Thakur Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)(89)LC185Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the course of their investigations into some smuggling activities the Custom House recorded the statement of Mohan Joma Koli who was found on board a vessel described only as a Karanja type vessel. Koli said that vessel had carried from Dubai 115 bags of contraband silver which it had transferred to another vessel at a point between Khanderi and Thai. Koli said that this was done at the instance of Baliram Thakur, the appellant. The officers located the other vessel & seized it. In three statements recorded on 13.7.1992, 15.7.1992 and 21.7.1992 Koli gave the details of the carriage of silver from Dubai and the transfer to the other vessel. He gave details of the sailing of the vessel etc. and he clearly and categorically named the appellant as a person whose instance carried the ingots. He also identified the photograph of the appellant. The officers also recorded the statement of Kisan Bama Koli who had been named by Mohan Koli as the person who asked him to guard the vesse...
Dcl Polyesters Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC651Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported a consignment of polyester filament yarn (PFY) and claimed clearance under an import licence which was issued for import of "speciality polyester filament yarn". Since the Custom House found that the goods imported were nothing other than the ordinary yarn it asked the Chief Controller of Imports as to the scope of the licence. That authority referred to the Custom House the application for licence made by the appellant. This application was for super multifilament polyester yarn with fine count and fine filament having normal and profiled cross-section and which has denier per filament less than 1. Since, according to the Custom House, the goods did not conform to this specification, notice was issued; proposing confiscation of the goods under Clause (d) of Section 111 as being imported without a licence and penalty on the importer under Section 112. The importer, in the reply to the notice and at the hearing contended that the goods were made by M/s. EMS In...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Hari Orgo Chem Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC248
1. Notice was issued on . to the assessee, the respondent to this appeal, proposing recovery of Modvat credit taken of the duties paid on inputs in June and July, 1991 on the ground that the inputs were not included in the declaration filed by the assessee under Rule 57G. The Assistant Collector did not accept the contention of the assessee that inputs were declared, and that the demand was barred by limitation. He confirmed the proposal of the notice.2. On appeal from this order, the Collector (Appeals) expressed the view that the inputs could not be said to have been declared. He however, found the notice to be barred by limitation, having been issued beyond six months from the dates on which credit was taken. He found that the Assistant Collector had considered not these dates but the dates on which the credit was actually utilized for paying duty.Hence this appeal by the department.3. I have heard the Departmental Representative. Respondent is absent and not represented despite is...
Shree Bomani Metals and Alloys Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC223
1. Prior to the introduction of the Modvat scheme, the proforma credit scheme was in operation whereby the credit of duty paid on the inputs could be utilised for payment of duty of final products. The eligible document was the gate pass. As per Circular No. 40/82 CX. 6, dated 30-11-1982 such proforma credit could be availed of on the basis of a certified copy where the original gate pass was lost. On the introduction of the Modvat scheme these instructions were made applicable to inputs received under the Modvat scheme also. This continued up to 15-12-1992 on which date vide Circular No. 25/92, dated 15-12-1992, the facility of permitting credit on certified copy of original document was withdrawn.2. In the present case, the assessees had taken credit on 25-9-1992 on the strength of attested copy of a gate pass dated 3-6-1992. A show cause notice was issued on 3-3-1992, seeking reversal of the credit so taken on the ground that Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not permi...
Gaurang Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT422Tri(Mum.)bai
1. By our Order No. 1928-30/98/WZB/C-II, dated 10-8-1998 we had directed the applicant Gaurang Mehta, to deposit an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs towards penalty within two months from that date out of penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs imposed on him by the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai.2. Brief facts are that duty had been demanded and penalties also levied on finding by the Commissioner that WIMCO Ltd. imported quantities of paper, steel and other goods under advance licences and DEEC book purportedly for use in the manufacture of export product but actually sold them. Various contentions were raised by the WIMCO Ltd. regarding revalidations as well as exports made. M/s. WIMCO Ltd. also said that they had deposited a duty of Rs. 1.19. crores.3. During the course of the arguments, it was contended on behalf of the applicant that there is no material to show that he purchased the material from WIMCO on having reason to believe that it was imported the m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »