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.
Mukund Staff and Officers Association Vs. Mukund Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR174; 1999(3)BomCR779; (1999)2BOMLR597; [1999(82)FLR648]; (1999)IILLJ500Bom; 1999(2)MhLj919
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. The present petition arises out of the judgment given in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 139 of 1995. The complaint was initiated by the Union alleging Unfair Labour Practices Under Item 9 of the Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. It was the say of the Union that all throughout the respondent-Company has given Sunday as a weekly off. The Company used to call some workmen on Sunday giving compensatory holiday on any other week-day and this was being done in consultation with the Union. The Company has now decided to virtually make it a common practice leading to staggering off the weekly holiday starting with the work of supervisors, who were at the relevant time 26 in number. This the Company has been insisting without entering into a dialogue with the Union, and the workmen having decided not to give up their weekly off, the insistence on the part of the Company that the workmen should come on Sunday, viz. weekly off, is being a complaint of as an unfair labou...
Sunanda Das and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR82; 2000(2)MhLj481
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, C.J. 1. Rule, returned forthwith. 2. Some members of legal fraternity, some residents of Pune including some retired I.A.S. officers, one Corporator of Pune Municipal Corporation and a Citizens' forum have filed these petitions in public interest. The prayer in all the petitions is similar. It is to quash the Transfer Order dated 13thMarch, 1999, in respect of Arun Bhatia from the Post of Municipal Commissioner, Pune. The transfer order was made barely 6 days after Bhatia had been appointed to the said post. According to the petitioners, transfer of Bhatia is arbitrary, capricious and manifestly against public interest. It has been pointed out in the petitions that the City of Pune is in the need of precisely such stringent action as has been taken by Bhatia to prevent encroachments and rampant unauthorised developments, which had hitherto been largely ignored, resulting in widespread damage to the city and prejudice to the residents and citizens. The claim of the ...
Mohamed Anwar Mohd. Yusuf Jiwa and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR715; (1999)3BOMLR28
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. Since these three appeals are arising out the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 59 of 1995 by the learned Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the N.D.P.S. Act), on the basis of the common F.I.R., all of them were heard together and are disposed of by this Judgment, as the factual matrix and legal aspects in each these three cases are identical with one another.2. Mr. Mohamed Anwar Mohd. Yusuf Jiwa, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 1997, accused No. 1 and Mr. Abubakar s/o Abdul Rahiman, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1997, accused No. 2 and Mr. Arjun Umpathi Reddy, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1997, accused No. 5 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26th February, 1997, rendered by the learned Special Judge under the N.D.P.S. Act in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 59 of 1995 for the offence unde...
ismail Kunhi Abdulla Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC626Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the confiscation ordered by the Commissioner of Customs at Sahar Airport of 70 mobile telephones and 19 hard disc drives seized from the appellant. In the impugned order the Commissioner found that the appellant was found with these goods after he was cleared from the Customs; that he had not declared these goods or paid duty on them. He ordered confiscation of the goods without option to redeem them and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lac.2. Advocate for the appellant did not press before us the ground in the appeal that the absence of gate pass which is normally issued by the baggage officer from the seized documents indicated that the goods were seized while the appellant was still within the Customs, and thus by implication, prior to his being able to declare the goods. He confines his argument to the valuation of the goods and the legality of absolute confiscation ordered.3. In his letter to the department, before the case was adjudicated, the appellant ha...
Laxmi Structural Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC733Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture inter alia of mild steel pipes. From 1980-81 onwards, it appears, the appellant availed of benefit of notification exempting the small scale manufacturers from payment of duty on the goods to the extent of the value specified for this in such notification, such as Notification 105/80. It is contended that these declarations had been filed in time for the periods 1980-81 to 1990-91, although this is a matter of doubt as will presently be seen. It is further contended that no dispute was raised by the department subsequent to filing these declarations. The department however issued notice dated 9-7-1991 alleging that appellant did not pay duty on the mild steel pipes manufactured and cleared without payment of duty from 20-5-1988 to 10-5-1991. The notice also proposed confiscation of a consignment seized from the appellant's premises.2. The assessee took the stand, in reply to the notice, that it had filed declarations claiming the notific...
Badridass Gauridatt Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC754Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal of M/s. Badridass Gauridatt Pvt. Ltd. is directed against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 20,000.00 against them. The appellants are exporters of made-up textile articles. They procure grey cotton fabrics and send them to independent processors for processing.Penalty has been imposed on the appellants on account of allegation of evasion of duty by under-statement of value, when duty was paid by the processor, M/s. Sunil Silk Mills, with regard to processing undertaken by them for the appellants. The adjudication order held that declaration in terms of Notification No. 305/77 was filed by the appellants. However, bills for processing were raised in the name of M/s. Alpa/Ankit Textile who in turn raised bills on the appellants and that charges paid by appellants to M/s. Alpa/Ankit Textile were more than the declared price to the Department. It has also been held against the appellants that the value declared in the declaration under Notification No. 305/77 by the appella...
Essenjay Marketing P. Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC624Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals are filed by the same appellants. The facts being identical, these are being disposed of vide this single order.2. The appellants are indenting agents for machinery. On the basis of orders processed by them, two importers viz. Indian Telephone Industries and M/s Sumax Precision, Pune imported "precision coordinate Jig Boring Machines" and claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 40/78. Pursuant to certain information, these cases were examined along with several other cases of similar imports. After the issue of Show Cause Notices, the cases were adjudicated whereby the benefit of the notification was denied, differential duty was confirmed and penalties were imposed on importers, as well as on the present appellants. The charge against the present appellants was that they had in association with the suppliers caused catalogues to be printed describing the machine in a manner which would enable their clearance under OGL and also en...
Vasu Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC559
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether product described as 'TRICHUP' is classifiable as ayurvedic medicament under Heading 30.03 or as a preparation used as a hair oil falling under Heading 33.05.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of ayurvedic medicines falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. One of the products manufactured by the appellant is known as TRICHUP OIL. The said product is manufactured under licence duly issued by the State Drug Control Authorities and the Joint Commissioner, Food and Drug (Control) Administration, Gujarat who have certified the product as an ayurvedic formulation. The appellant filed classification list for the year 1994-95 and thereafter declaration for the years 1995-96, 1996-97 classifying the same under sub-heading 30.03 and they were duly approved by the department without any objection. All the ingredients used in the TRICHUP OIL are ayurvedic in nature and are specified in "ARYABHISHAK" wh...
Zulfikar @ D. Abdul Sattar Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR702
1. Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 25th November, 1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 160 of 1992, convicting and sentencing him to undergo seven years R.I. under section 392/397 I.P.C.2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :The informant-victim Mohandas Shettygar P.W. 1 at the time of the incident, was working as a helper in Mahendra and Mahendra Company. On 25th October 1991, he had proceeded for his duties at about 7.30 a.m. At about 5 p.m. he was relieved from his duties, came up to Mangatram petrol pump on a bus; and thereafter at about 5.45 p.m. when he was proceeding on foot to his house on Pratap Nagar Road, the appellant and co-accused Laddu both armed with knives emerged. They pointed their knives on his neck and stomach. The appellant pulled out his chain. Thereafter, they ran away.3. After being robbed, the informant victim Mohandas Shettygar P.W. 1 proceeded to Bhandup Police...
Azeez Usman Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR704; 2000BomCR(Cri)704; 1999(3)MhLj272
ORDERMrs. Ranjana P. Desai, J.1. Accused Azeez Usman Shaikh filed Criminal Appeal No. 406/97 through the Superintendent of Yeravada Central Prison, impugning judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17-4-1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1996. The said appeal was not maintainable and, therefore, it was allowed to be converted into the present Criminal Revision Application.2. Appellant-Azeez Usman Shaikh, hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' was tried in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 337/95 for offences punishable under sections 366, 376, 324 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. By the judgment and order dated 19-1-1996, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. of six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for six months. No separate s...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »