Mumbai Court April 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.
Sahyadri Starch and Auxi Chem Vs. C.C.E. and C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT829Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of starch from maize.The process of manufacture requires treating with kernel of maize with water into which had been dissolved sulphur dioxide. Notice was issued to the assessee alleging that by this process of the mixing of sulphur dioxide and water, dilute sulphuric acid emerges, on which duty had not been paid; since the final product, starch was exempt from duty by Notification 27/91, the benefit of Notification under 217/86 could not be available to it. In the order impugned in the appeal the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector demanding duty on the sulphuric acid held by him to have been manufactured.2. The contention of the Advocate of the appellant that sulphuric acid was not manufactured at all has to be accepted. The Condensed Chemical Dictionary by G. Hawley refers to a solution of sulphur di-oxide in water as sulphuric acid and unstable. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technica...
Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT901Tri(Mum.)bai
impugned order came up for decision, it appeared that at this stage itself, the main appeals could be decided. Both sides agreeing, this was done.2. The appellants imported certain goods. The Customs authorities assessed the goods under a wrong Tariff sub-heading resulting in the assessees having to pay more amount of additional duty than ought to have been paid by them. They took the Modvat credit of the actual amount paid by them. Vide three show cause notices the differential credit between what was paid and what was correctly payable if the assessment had been done under the proper heading, was sought to be reversed. The Assistant Commissioner ordered reversal. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order. In doing so he relied upon the wording of Notification No. 5/94. It was his belief that the wording in the notification suggested that only that amount is to be given as credit which according to the statute is leviable and not what actually has been paid.3. I have heard Shri J.R...
icici Limited Vs. Alpine Industries Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom112; 1999(3)BomCR771; [2001]106CompCas14(Bom)
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The plaintiffs have moved this Court for a Judge's Order. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that this Court by order dated 11th December, 1998 at the ad-interim stage granted the following prayer:-'That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, Court Receiver, High Court , Bombay, be appointed Receiver of all the immoveable properties of Defendant No. 1 including properties situate at Pithampur, District Dhar in the State of Madhya Pradesh and more particularly described in Exhibit 'A' to the plaint, the movable properties described in Exhibit 'B' to the plaint, with all powers under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.' Pursuant to the said order, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, by letter dated 22nd February, 1999 fixed 9th March, 1999 as the date for taking possession of the suit securities. The Advocate for the plaintiffs received aletter dated 22nd February, 1999 wherein they were informed that the proceedings have been ...
Vasant Narayan Khakhanis Vs. Mrs. Prabhavati Balchandra Harjarnis, Sin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR369; (1999)2BOMLR908; 1999(2)MhLj889
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. By this judgment the second appeal filed by the original plaintiff and the cross objections filed by original defendant No. 1 are being disposed of.2. The suit property is the bungalow known as Laxmi Kunj built on City Survey No. 33/1B of Erandavane on the plot obtained on permanent lease from Deccan Gymkhana Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. in Pune. One Narayan Kashinath Karkhanis (for short Narayan) obtained the said plot on permanent lease. The bungalow thereon was constructed by him from his own earnings as well as from the funds of his wife Ramabai. He died on 16-4-1968 and his wife Ramabai died somewhere in the year 1977. The original plaintiff Sou. Prabhavati Bhalchandra Hajarnis, the original defendant No. 1 Vasant Narayan Kharkhanis, the original defendant No. 3 Gopal Narayan Karkhanis and the original defendant No. 2 Sou. Sumati Yeshwant Mathure are sons and daughters of Narayan and Ramabai. Narayan is alleged to have executed the Will bequeathing the aforesa...
Tulshiram Bhanudas Kambale and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR619; (1999)3BOMLR92; 2000CriLJ1566
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Since these three connected criminal appeals arise out of the same set of facts and a common impugned judgment, we are disposing them of by one judgment.2. Through these criminal appeals, the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 4th January, 1996, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1995, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter:--(i) All the appellants under section 452 r/w 149 I.P.C. to undergo 3years R.I.: (ii) Appellants Tulsiram Kambale, Ramchandra Kambale, Ganesh Shirsat, Ashok Waghmare, Dnyaneshwar Naikwadi, Anil Mane and Sunil Mane to undergo life imprisonment under section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. and (iii) Appellants Tulsiram Kambale, Anil Mane and Rajendra Kothalkar to undergo two years R.I. for the offence under section 324 r/w 149 I.P.C.The sentences of the appellants were ordered to fun concurrently.3. In short the prosecution case runs as under :The appellant...
Mrs. Minal Manohar Borwankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR292; 1999CriLJ2936
ORDERDr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This criminal writ petition is filed, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3rd December, 1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 216 of 1991, dismissing the said revision application filed by the applicant Mrs. MinalManohar Borwankar (present petitioner). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the revision application filed by the applicant, confirmed the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivli, directing the complainant Mrs. Minal Borwankar to pay compensation of Rupees Five hundred to the accused, as provided under section 250(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days.2. Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows:It is the prosecution case that the complainant Mrs. Minal Manohar Borwankar was a landlady in whose premises the accused Shilpa Vinay Nerurkar...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sigma Paints Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: [1999]238ITR705(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that where a claim of deduction was proposed to be disallowed by the Income-tax Officer in the draft assessment order but was allowed in the assessment order in consequence of the direction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B it was not open to the Commissioner of Income-tax to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of that part of the assessment order ?'2. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1978-79. The material facts giving rise to this reference are as under :The assessee is a limited company. In the draft assessment order, which was forwarded by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.M. Ghia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: [1999]238ITR736(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 80V of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of Rs. 58,000 forthe assessment year 1976-77, Rs. 44,500 for the assessment year 1977-78 and Rs. 55,445 for the assessment year 1978-79 ?'2. The assessee is an individual. He was a partner of the firm, M. C. Ghia and Co. His personal account in the firm had been treated somewhat like a current account. His income was credited in that account, similarly, his drawing, payment of taxes, etc., were debited in that account. The partnership deed did not stipulate that the partners would be debited with interest. Nevertheless, interest was charged on the debit balances. The int...
Bank of India Vs. Kalidas Haribhau More
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR426]; (2000)ILLJ216Bom
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Sri Pai, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Satpute, the learned counsel for the respondent,2. Sri Pai, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellate Court erred in setting aside the judgment and order passed by the trial Court by relying upon the telegram, dated October 10, 1990 as a communication for withdrawal of resignation letter. Sri. Pai submits that the expression 'lien' in the telegram, dated October 10, 1990, is not withdrawal of resignation letter. According to him the employee-respondent sent a notice of resignation of three months on July 10, 1990 and on the expiry of three months, the resignation letter came into effect automatically and, therefore, the appeal Court erred in decreeing the plaintiffs suit.3. The employee who is respondent herein and original plaintiff in the suit sent the communication to the appellant-employer on July 10, 1990. The said communication was in the nature of three months notice of resignat...
Medical Engineers (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC773Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Medical Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd. is whether the benefit of notification No. 175/86 was available to the excisable goods cleared by them during the financial year 1992-93.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the appellants who, under their letter dated 12.2.1999, had requested to decide the matter on merits. We, therefore, heard Shri S.K. Das, learned DR, and perused the records. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants claimed the benefit of no tification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986 in their classification lists No. 8/92-93 and 9/92-93 with effect from 1.4.1992 which were approved by the Assistant Commissioner.On appeal, the Collector (Appeals), however, denied them the benefit of notification holding that they were registered with the Directorate General of Technical Development and not registered as a small scale industry with the Directorate of Industries and the eligibility for the benefit of n...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »