Mumbai Court May 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.
Tukaram S/O Ramji Koli and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR105; 2000(1)BomCR686; 1999(3)MhLj735
ORDERPer S. H. Kapadia, J.1. This is a group of petitions, wherein the petitioners are claiming freedom fighters pension or freedom fighters family pension.2. The Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the said Scheme') was introduced by the Government of India on the occasion of 25th Anniversary of the Independence. It commenced on 15th August, 1972. It provided for grant of pension to the freedom fighters and if they were not alive to their families and also to the families of the martyrs. From 1st August, 1980 the benefit of the Scheme was extended to all freedom fighters irrespective of their income and as a token of honour (Sanman) to them. The eligibility to get the Sanman pension depended upon the freedom fighter having suffered minimum imprisonment of six months. The object of the said Scheme was to honour and where it was necessary alsoto mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country inthe hour of its nee...
Wall Street Construction Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1999
Reported in: [1999]71ITD47(Mum); (2002)75TTJ(Mumbai)653
ORDERH.C. Srivastava, A.M.Both the appeals concern the same assessee and the same assessment year. They are being disposed of together for the sake of convenience.2. ITA No. 9595/Bom/1995 is decided first. The ground of appeal of department reads as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing to allow expenses against 'on money' received by the assessee which were not recorded in the books and also erred in directing to tax 12 per cent of the 'on money' as assessee's income.'3. In the above case, following facts are found :1. There were two searches in this case on 21-8-1990 and on 24-12-1992, respectively.2. In the first search, a computer sheet was found, whose pp. 131 and 147 were seized as they gave details of 'on money, receipts amounting to Rs. 1,04,44,834.3. The assessee submitted that the same was offered for taxation for the assessment year 1991-92 in addition to the regular income.4. In the second ...
Pheonix International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT500Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants in this case filed Bill of Entry for clearance of goods described as "Printed PVC (PVC Leather Clothes)" for home consumption claiming coverage of Advance Licence under the DEEC Scheme.The licence listed "Printed PVC" as an eligible item of import. A sample of the goods was examined by the assessing officer. On examination it appeared to the Officers that the goods had acquired essential characteristics of shoe uppers and could not continue to be identified as PVC cloth. Show cause notice dated 25-6-1998 was issued alleging that in terms of Rule 2 (a) of the General Rules for Interpretation of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the goods were classifiable as parts of footwear under Heading 6406. It was alleged that the declaration made on the Bill of Entry was wrong, making the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The show cause notice proposed reclassification of the goods, confiscation thereof and imposition of pen...
Cc Vs. Western Paper and Co. and anr.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC184Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue involving the issue whether the benefit of Notification No. 341/76-CUS dt. 7.4.1976 is available to the goods described as "both sides Coated Multi-layered pasted Art Board".2. When the matters were called, none of the Respondents were present in spite of notice. We, therefore, heard Shri A.M. Tilak, Ld. D.R. and perused the records. Ld. D.R. submitted that notification No.341/76-Cus. provided a concessional rate of duty to paper and paperboard specifically mentioned in SI. No. 98 of the table annexed to the Notification. The benefit of the Notificational (sic) was available, inter alia, to Multilayered Paperboard or Paste Board. He, further, submitted that the goods imported by the Respondents were undisputedly coated on both sides. The Notification does not mention that the Multilayered Paper Board would be coated; that coating is a process subsequent to coming into existence of multilayered paperboard and if the intention of the law mak...
Cce Vs. Dawn Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC520Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Matter called. None for the respondents. Therefore, we have heard the Ld. SDR Shri A.K. Agarwal, in respect of the Revenues appeal.Before we advert to the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue in its appeal we refer briefly to the facts as can be culled from 2 orders of the two lower authorities before us. In the Order-in-Original the Assistant Collector approved the classification list directing that duty should be paid on the single yarn stage before it is taken for doubling i.e. yarn duty to be paid at spindle stage. On appeal this order was reversed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay which is impugned before us.3. In its appeal Revenue endorsed the finding of the lower appellate authority regarding payment of duty at the stage of doubling of yarn, but they have challenged that the impugned order is not clear on the ground if the double yarn is sized and then cleared the duty should be charged after sizing. For this proposition the Revenue has relied on Supreme Court judgment i...
Asra Shakeel Vs. Shakeel Suleman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR198
ORDERF.I. REBELLO, J. 1. The respondent at the hearing of the petition has raised a preliminary objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief as no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is, therefore, contended that the petition which is filed invoking Clause 17 of the Letters Patent of this Court read with section 3 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 is not maintainable. 2. Brief narration of facts may be necessary to decide the controversy. The petitioner married respondent on 24th January, 1987. Out of this wedlock a son named as Faraz was born on 22nd October, 1987. On 3rd November, 1998 the petitioner left Madurai taking along with her the minor son Faraz who was then schooling at Vikasa School at Madurai in Standard VI. The petitioner while leaving left a note. Only the material part of the note in so far as the present issue is concerned will be referred to. The sum and substance in the note is that the p...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Manubhai Jethabhai Patel and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR325
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J,1. The plaintiffs-decree holders have moved this Court by way of Judges' Order. On 19th March 1999 it was agreed between the parties that this should be treated as Notice of Motion under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure and order was passed accordingly. 2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit in the High Court of Justice, Queens' Bench Division bearing No. 1995-B. No. 2588. In the said suit judgment came to be pronounced on 3rd July 1996, against defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs, being unable to get the decree satisfied by execution in U.K., have applied for execution of the said decree before this Court. The plaintiffs have annexed a certified copy of the judgment along with a certificate issued by the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division dated 16th June 19997 that the decree remains wholly unsatisfied. It is contended that the judgment/decree is of a reciprocating country and consequently can be executed in this Court. Reliance for that purpose...
Shivaji S/O Marotrao Suryawanshi Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR628; 2000(2)BomCR837; 2000(2)MhLj306
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. Heard Shri V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Shri S.K. Kadam, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Shri A.B. Kale, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 8, 10, 11, 17 and 18; and Shri V.D. Sapkal, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 9, 15, 20 and 22. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19 and 21 are served, but have not filed appearance.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:The petitioner is the borrower member of the respondent No. 4-Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Sonkhed (hereinafter referred for short as 'the society'). The said society is registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred for short as 'the Act'). The society has approved bye-laws and the jurisdiction of the society is limited to the area of Sonkhed village. The respondent No. 3 is appointed as the Returning Officer for the election of the managing committee of the said society. The t...
In the Matter of Appointment of Person of a Male Minor Ward. Harald Ha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR188; 1999(4)BomCR273; (1999)2BOMLR609; 2000(3)MhLj268
ORDERF.I. Rebello J.1. This petition along with several other petitions was posted for hearing on a common issue which arose therein. The issue is, what is the power of this Court to appoint a foreign guardian, in respect of infants, where temporary guardianship was granted in terms of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. As the matter was not covered by any reported judgment and involved a large number of children in respect of whom petitions were pending in this Court, notice was issued amongst others to the learned Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra. Various organizations including ICSW. Counsel generally appearing in these matters were heard and their views have been considered.2. The facts in the present petition are only been set out as they will be sufficient for the purpose of disposing of the issue in controversy.3. The petitioners herein have moved this Court under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent as also under section 3 and other provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act...
Rajesh Yadavrao Shankpale Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom372; 1999(3)ALLMR433; 2000(1)MhLj168
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 28th March, 1988 by which the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe and, accordingly, his claim came to be invalidated. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee has since been upheld by the Appellate Authority also vide Judgment dated 30-3-1983 in Caste Appeal No. 130/1988.2. The facts giving rise to this Writ Petition, briefly, are as follows :--3. On 5th July, 1982 a Caste Certificate came to be issued by Taluka Executive Magistrate in favour of Madhav Yadavrao Shankpale (brother of the petitioner herein). According to that Certificate, Madhav was declared to be belonging to Mahadeo Koli Caste which falls under Scheduled Tribes. That Certificate came to be referred for verification to the Director of Social Welfare, Pune. Pending verification, Yadavrao, father...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »