Mumbai Court July 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.
Mr. Olaf Wumling Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR538; 2000(72)ECC258; 2000(4)MhLj72
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for possession of 120 gms. Of charas which is punishable under section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act). The prosecution had examined five witnesses in support of the charge. The Special Judge has recorded conviction of the appellant for possession of 120 gms. of charas and has sentenced the appellant to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rupees one lakh, in default undergo one year simple imprisonment under section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The period of detention of the accused during the trial has been set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The appellant challenges his conviction in this appeal.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23rd January, 1998 at about 1.30 p.m. P.S.I. Uday Naik (P.W. 4) of Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station, Panaji received specific and reliable information that a foreigner with beard, tall having height of more t...
B.E.S.T. Workers Union Vs. Bombay Electric Workers Union and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ540Bom
A.P. Shah, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated June 30, 1994 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Appeal (IC) No. 11 of 1983 and Appeal (IC) No. 12 of 1983, a proceedings under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are these: Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 namely, Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Company Limited (BEST) and the Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Company Limited (BSES) are engaged in the supply of electrical energy in this metropolis. Respondent No. 4 in turn runs two industries, public passenger transport and the supply of electrical energy. Several employees are employed by both the Undertakings, the total roughly would be 5500 being the strength at the relevant point of time. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 are unions registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Prior to August, 1972 the petitioner Union was acce...
Appalal Alias Ismail Ibrahim Vs. Shaba Shiraj Mulla and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR388
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. M.R. Suryavanshi for the petitioner and Mr. R.D. Suryavanshi i/b Mr. S.G. Deshmukh for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a civil suit in 1962 for possession of certain land, namely, Survey No. 169 1 /A and 1 /C. In that suit the present petitioner was defendant No. 3, his wife Masayabi was defendant No. 2 and his sister-in-law Jamulabi was defendant No. 1. In that suit the petitioner raised a plea that he was a tenant of the suit land from the landlords Jamulabi and Masayabi i. e. his sister-in-law and his wife. The Civil Court, Kurundwad, therefore framed a issue and referred it to the Tenancy Aval Karkun for decision. The Tenancy Aval Karkun recorded evidence and answered the issue in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner by his order dated 31.7.1982. The respondents filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kolhapur). That appeal was allowed and order of the Tenancy Aval Karkun was set asi...
Jayantilal A. Shah and anr. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC21Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals have been filed against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai-VI made in Order-in-Original No.207/97-Commr. VI dated 29.11.1997 whereunder she confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 26,05,547/- and imposed the penalty of equal amount under Section 11AB. She also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on the appellant Jayantilal A. Shah (Appellant in Appeal 984/98) under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. She ordered confiscation of the land, building, plant and machinery and for violation under Rule 173Q(2) and fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-was imposed. She also confiscated excess of the goods which were released on execution of Bond supported with 10% bank guarantee and imposed fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 1 lakh.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of domestic appliances such as mixers/grinder, pressure cookers, electric fans and water filters and Tawa (frying pan) falling under Chapter sub-heading 8509, 8414.20, 7615 and 6903.30 of the ...
Hindustan Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC555Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration is the liability to duty of Dobby cards of plastic manufactured by the appellant and the eligibility exemption under notification 53/88.2. The appellant is absent and requested decision on merits. We have heard the departmental representative and perused the papers.3. The departmental representative cites the decision of the Tribunal in Shri Dinesh Mills v. CCE . The Tribunal in that decision had held that punching of holes in the dobby cards which were used in textile machinery amounts to manufacture and held the goods classifiable under heading 3926.90 of the Tariff. There being no material produced before us as to why this decision should not apply, we hold that the punching of the dobby cards amounts to manufacture.4. The next issue is the eligibility to notification 53/88 of the goods. The Collector (Appeals) has denied the notification 53/88 and 14/92 on the ground that the conditions specified in each of the notifications for exemption, that th...
Sant Nilobarai Transport (P.) Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Container Movers Syndica ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR219; 1999(3)MhLj216
ORDERS. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 1. Perused the impugned award as well as affidavit in reply filed by the respondent No. 1. 2. By this petition the petitioner is challenging the award dated 17th September, 1998. The brief facts leading to this case are as Under. 3. It appears that the Shipping Corporation of India had awarded a contract to the present petitioners on 1st May, 1998 for transportation of break bulk cargo for the vessels berthed in Mumbai Port. The petitioners started implementing the contract and started operating in view thereof, the respondent No. 1 who was the former contractor gave notice of retrenchment to their excess workmen. In view of the said notice, the Union viz. respondent No. 2 herein boycotted the clearance of cargo of all the Shipping Corporation of India's vessels. 4. In view of the difficulty faced by Shipping Corporation of India in getting their cargo cleared, finally an agreement was arrived ...
Bhiva S/O Tukaram Tarkase Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR498; 2000(1)MhLj593
ORDERPer J.A. Patil, J.1. The deceased Alkabai was married to the appellant on 25-5-1986. She committed suicide on 13-12-1990 by consuming some insecticide. It is the prosecution case that the appellant and his mother, Chandrabhagabai (accused No. 2) used to ill-treat Alkabai in connection with payment of dowry. Accordingly, both the accused were put on trial in Sessions Case No. 51 of 1991. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambejogai, however, R.M. Borde, Adv. found that no case was proved against the accused No. 2-Chandrabhagabai. He, therefore, acquitted her. The learned Judge, however, found the appellant (accused No. 1) guilty of the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. He sentenced the appellant on the first count to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months and on the second count to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Hence t...
Birla Tyres Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC861Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeals are relating to valuation have been filed by the appellants against the decision of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay made in Order-in-Appeal No. 256/92-BCH, dated 4.6.1992 whereunder, he dismissed the two appeals of the appellants confirming the orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs, made in S/26-Vol-273/91-IIB and S/26-949/91-IIB dated 20.11.1991 and 29.10.1991 enhancing the value for purpose duty @ US $ 2077 per M.T. from US $ 1925/- CIF for 2 consignments and for third consignment from US $ 1950/MT.2.Facts of the case were that the appellants were manufacturing automotive & other tyres from synthetic/natural rubber, for manufacturing the above goods they imported three consignments of Polyester Butyl-301 from Polysar International SA, Switzerland.3 Oct. 1991 Inv. No. 030-55611 1925 MT 42.89630 Sept. 1991 Inv. No. 030-55355 1925 MT 42.9319 Sept. 1991 Inv. No. 030-55209 1950 MT 42.916 The Assistant Collector by his Orders dated 20.11.1991 and...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Alpanil Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC854Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the Department's appeal against the impugned order dated 19-5-1998 of Commissioner (Appeals) praying for setting aside the same.1. The facts of the case in brief are that the Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of S.O. Dyes falling under Chapter 32 of CETA, 1985 and avails benefit of Modvat credit. Respondent wrongfully availed Modvat credit of Rs. 62,000/- on capital goods without filing declaration under Rule 57T(1) of Central Excise Rules. Show cause notice was issued on 18-4-1995 proposing recovery of the same under Rule 57T and penalty.After receipt of the reply from Respondents, and hearing the party Assistant Commissioner confirmed the Demand and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of Central Excise Rules on 22-1-1996.The party's appeal against the above order was allowed under the impugned order, as covered by the Board's Circular No. 181/15/96-CX and Trade Notice No. 24/9/96, dated 22-3-1996 and 1996 (81) E.L.T. 563 (Tribunal) in the case of ...
Cc Vs. Century Enka Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC340Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent assessees manufactured polyster filament yarn and nylon tyre cord. One of the inputs was spin finish oil. The assessees on importation of this product had paid duty without availing the benefit of Notification No. 44/90 dated 20.3.1990. They filed claims for refund of the differential duty paid under the Tariff rate and under the concessional rate prescribed by the Notification. These claims were examined but were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the observation that the assessees had not conclusively established that the amount of duty being claimed as refund has not been passed on to any other person. Appeals against this decision were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the Bombay High Court judgement in the case of Solar Pesticides 1994 (50) ECR 7 (Bom) and also on Single Judge decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Indo Swiss Synthetic Gem Co. held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not appl...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »