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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Globe Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT898Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is a departmental appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai made Order-in-Appeal No. YPP/1006/M-III/98, dated 29-10-1998 whereunder he had allowed the Modvat credit for the inputs purchased by the assessee respondents before me.2. The assessee respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Organic Surface Active Agents, Plasticisers for rubber or Plastic vegetable fats and oils and their fractions, Rosin & Rosin acids, Acrylic Alcohols and Poly Carboxylic Acids falling under Chapter sub-headings 3402.90, 3812.00, 1504.00, 3806.90, 2905.90 and 2917.90 respectively of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules and SSI exemption under Notification No. 1 /93. After crossing the total clearances again started paying Central Excise duty w.e.f. 14-5-1993 by opting Modvat from 14-5-1993. The Department's contention is in respect of certain inputs i.e. T.D. Al...
indrayani Paper Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR27; 2000(2)BomCR32
ORDERA.A. HALBE, PRESIDENT, J.1. This complaint raises some important questions of law viz., (i) whether the impermissible action of the legally constituted authority while exercising its jurisdiction can be upheld to be legal and binding, and (ii) whether on account of such action bordering on the excessive exercise of jurisdiction, the damage caused to the party is liable to be compensated by the Insurance Company.2. We may initially draw the broad picture of the event that took place which gave rise to this complaint. The complainant Indrayani Paper Products Ltd. commenced it production in the one acre of land from S. No. 135/1- Kofmauza Jamtha, Taluka & District Nagpur in the Year 1994. For that purpose, the complainant had put up the necessary building structure, installed machinery, collected raw material for manufacture of paper. However to the great surprise of the management, on 26-11-96, the party comprising Court Bailiff, Policemen and 30-40 persons essentially comprising of...
Baleshwar @ Bapu Shravan Shevale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR643
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 13-5-1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions Case No. 27 of 1994, convicting and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months, for an offence under section 302 I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us. 2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under:-On 25-8-1992 the deceased Mahesh along with his friends had a quarrel with Jagannath Wable, son of Haribhau Wable P.W. 6 resulting in Jagannath Wable lodging an F.I.R. against them. On 27-8-1992, Mahesh his friend-Vijay Kharde, Sanjay Sonawane, Kailash Gangurde and Kiran Wagh had gone to the house of Papu Kasar who told them that Jagannath Wable had kicked him when he was demanding one Ganesh Card from the appellant. Consequently, all of them went to the house of Jagannath Wable in Dingarali. Mahesh and Kiran Wagh P.W. 8 went to call him. At that time, the appellant was tak...
Gufran Hasan Qureshi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR744; (1999)2BOMLR780; 1999(3)MhLj913
ORDERP.C.1. Rule.2. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and heard both the learned Counsel; Shri Toraskar Advocate appointed for the petitioner and Smt. Tahilramani, Public Prosecutor for the State.3. This is a petition by a convict who is undergoing sentence of 10 years imprisonment pursuant to his conviction under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (for short 'N.D.P.S. Act') by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon District Nasik in Sessions Case No. 98 of 1991 passed on 2nd April, 1992. Under the said order he was sentenced to 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-; in default to suffer further imprisonment for two years. It is brought to our notice that the petitioner's Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1992 was dismissed by this Court on 20th August, 1993. Criminal Application No. 1119 of 1994 for review of the order dated 20th August, 1993 was dismissed by this Court on 28th June, 1994.4. The petitioner has applied through jail that, on ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amritaben R. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: [1999]238ITR777(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 assessee was entitled to deduction under; Section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79 of interest on the loans raised by the assessee for acquiring shares in Raval Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd., with an intention to acquire control over the said company ?'The assessee had purchased shares in Raval Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 2.07 lakhs at par after January, 1972. Her husband also purchased shares in the said company during the same period at par of face value of Rs. 1,77,500 and her father-in-law, Korshi Hirji Shah, purchased shares during the same period of Rs. 34,500. Thus the entire shareholding of Rs. 4.19 lakhs in the said company was purchased by the assess...
Cc Vs. Kamal Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC220Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent to this appeal is absent and unrepresented. By letter dated 3.2.1999 adjournment is sought on the ground that the respondent's advocate Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran is busy in some other hearing. An adjournment of the hearing fixed for 13.1.1999 was granted on the same ground. In view of the fact that there is no request from Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran assuming him to be the advocate for the respondent, indicating reasons as to why he is unable to come, we are decline to adjourn.2. We have heard the departmental representative and perused the records.3. The respondent imported a consignment comprising 50 MT of licorice roots from United Arab Emirates. The bill of entry presented for clearance of these goods showed the value to be US $ 5,500 CIF. The department's investigations to believe that the initial contract was for the goods to be transported by country craft from Ajman to Mumbai.The goods were in fact transported in 10 containers on a steamer.Freight actually paid for...
Collector of Customs Vs. Bhuwalk Steel Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT183Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the department is whether the goods described as billet cuttings are entitled to the benefit of concessional assessment under Notification No. 51/94.2. We have heard the Departmental Representative and perused the papers. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite issue of notice.3. Notification No. 51 /94 extended inter alia concessional assessment to billets containing by weight less than 0.96% of Carbon. The goods imported by the respondent were classifiable under Heading No. 7207.19 of the Tariff under which billets are classifiable. Collector (Appeals) noted the classification and also observed that they were rerollable and contained by weight less than 0.6% Carbon. Therefore he extended the benefit of the notification.4. The contention in the appeal is that it is common knowledge that billets and billets cuttings are different and distinct. It is not possible for us to perceive the difference between the two. The Depart...
Dr. (Miss) Azmy Pesi Bharucha Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR29; (1999)2BOMLR737; 1999(2)MhLj737
ORDERDr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 3rd March, 1992, issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivli, Bombay in Notice No. 250/1 of 1992, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be punished for fabricating false evidence by trying them summarily under section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The background which led the learned Magistrate to issue a show cause notice, as mentioned above, against the petitioner and one Dr. (Mrs.) Shrivastav, needs to be briefly narrated. 3. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. Azmy Pesi Bharucha is an M.D. in Gynaecology and Obstetrics, and at the relevant time, she was working as lecturer in Cooper Hospital, a Municipal Hospital at Juhu, from 1st January, 1992 with full time clinical duties. 4. On 8th January, 1992, a small girl of nine years was refe...
M/S. Nav Prabhat Enterprises Vs. Shree Ganesh Dyeing and Printing Work ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR371; 1999(4)BomCR462; 1999(3)MhLj5
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The applicant the Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Limited has moved this Court in proceedings for execution taken out against the defendant No. 1. It is the case of the applicant that order dated 22nd January, 1999 passed by the Commissioner for Taking Account of this Court, be set aside and it be declared that the said order is illegal., bad-in-law and passed without any application of mind. There is also a prayer for interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (b) and some other reliefs which I need not advert to presently.2. It is the case of the applicant that they had advanced money to defendant No. 1. In respect of the amount advanced, as defendant No. 1 failed to pay the amount, dispute was raised under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. An Award came to be passed against the defendant No. 1 on 3rd July, 1995. The applicant thereafter proceeded to execute the said Award. On 22nd December, 1995 a certificate was issued in their favour t...
M. Sreenivasulu Reddy and ors. Vs. Kishore R. Chhabria and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: [2002]109CompCas18(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The notices of motion in Suit No. 3910 of 1997 seek to challenge the legality and validity of substantial acquisitions of shares by defendants Nos. 1 to 11 in defendant No. 12-company allegedly in violation of the provisions of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1994, and pray for the annulment thereof, particularly in the context of the breaches of regulations 9 and 10 which require a public announcement of the intention to acquire substantial shares in certain circumstances. Defendants Nos. 1 to 11 on the other hand, dispute the right of third parties like the plaintiffs to challenge such acquisitions, the rights of plaintiffs claimed to be based in common law and/or statute and as to whether the voting rights flowing from such shares can be injuncted by filing a suit in the context of the relevant provisions of the Companies Act. Consequently, the questions pertaining to balance of convenience and appropriate orders to be passe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »