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.
NalIn Vanilal Vora Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC345Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On receipt of information that contraband goods were concealed in one container and two cases covered under bill of entry No. 81/24, the officers examined the contents thereof under a panchanama. The bill of entry showed the name of importer as M/s. Anish Kumar & Company, 602, Sharda Chambers, New Marine Lines, Bombay. The clearing agents were Y.G. Mani & Company, CHA 11/38. The bill of entry had been noted but was not assessed. The examination of the container resulted in recovery of undeclared electronic goods such as V.C.R., Cassette deck, Tunnel amplifier, sewing machine etc. These goods were found concealed below the declared goods. These goods valued at Rs. 17,000/-(Rupees Seventeen Thousand) (CIF) and Rs. 51,000/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand) (market value) were seized. The declared goods namely automobile parts were examined and counted and compared with the quantities shown in the invoices. The check resulted in recovery of certain automobile parts which were not de...
Ramagauri Keshvlal Virani Vs. Walkeshwar Triveni Co-operative Housing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom385; 2000(2)BomCR687; 1999(3)MhLj145
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Naik for the petitioner and Mr. Deodhar for the respondent No. 1 society.2. The society-respondent No. 1 filed a dispute against the present petitioner in respect of the terrace on the 7th floor of the building in Wing 'A'.That dispute came to be decided in favour of the society against which the petitioner filed an appeal, but the same was also dismissed. Hence, this petition. 3. It was contended by Mr. Naik that the petitioner has purchased from the original builder two bedroom flat on the 7th floor having an area of about 1000 sq.ft. and more along with a terrace appertaining to the said flat admeasuring about 1700 sq.ft. According to him the flat along with the terrace was purchased by the petitioner on 20-6-1966. He contended that the petitioner had proved the title to the said flat along with the terrace and since the flat had two doors opening into the terrace, the ownership of the terrace was required to be accepted in favour of the petitione...
Madhukar Pralhadrao Pathak Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR279; 2000(4)BomCR130; [2000(84)FLR215]
ORDERP.S. Patankar, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard both sides for disposal. No reply is filed in spite of the order dated 14-12-98. By this petition, the petitioner is praying for restoration of one-third pension after 15years of his absorption in Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation in view of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. 2. The petitioner entered the service on 7-7-47 in the Revenue Department of the State Government. He worked in the Department upto 24-6-67. At that stage the State Government took the decision to establish Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and some of the officers working under the State Government were to be deputed. The petitioner was accordingly deputed on 24-6-67. He came to be absorbed permanently in Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Service on 19-5-72 as per the Government Resolution of the even date. The said Government Resolution provided that retirement benefits admissible under the concern...
Yogesh Indukumar Patel Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR545
ORDERP.C.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Additional Solicitor General, waives service for respondent No. 1. Mr. A.L. Patki, Additional Government Pleader, waives service for respondent No. 2. By consent, Rule called out and heard.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, the father of a minor girl, Payal Yogesh Patel, seeks a direction to the Union of India in the Ministry of External Affairs through the Regional Passport Officer to rectify what is alleged to be a mistake in the date of birth committed by the Regional Passport Office while issuing a passport to his daughter Payal.3. In the application submitted to the Regional Passport Officer at Mumbai in April, 1998, the date of birth of Payal was indicated as '28-05-1983'. The applicant submitted a xerox copy of a previous passport No. E-288403 as proof of date of birth. In the previous passport also the date of birth of the petitioner's daughter Payal had been shown as ...
Shri Ajay Prakash @ Aju Karua Valmiki Vs. Sudhakar Ambedhar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR66; 2000BomCR(Cri)66; 2000(3)MhLj417
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - detenu has impugned the detention Order dated 12-10-1998 passed by the first respondent Mr. Sudhakar Ambedkar, Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai, detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Mah. Act No. LV of 1981).The detention Order dated 12-10-1998 along with the grounds of detention bearing the same date was served on the detenu on 13-10-1998. The true copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to the petition. 2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the detention order is based on three C. Rs. which have been filed against the petitioner - detenu at Rabale Police Station namely :-(a) C.R No. 284 of 1998 registered under section 147, 148, 384, 452...
Shri Mohd. Azim S/O Abusalim Khan Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR70; 2000BomCR(Cri)70; 2000(2)MhLj539
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu has impugned the detention order dated 30-3-1998 passed by the first respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment- 1996).2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 30-3-1998 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 23-10-1998. The detention order and the grounds of detention have been annexed as Annexure A and B respectively to the petition.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.Since this writ petition can be decided on the legal contention contained in Ground No. 7(B) of the petition, we are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu, contained in the grounds of detentio...
Burroughs Wellcome (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1029Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeals taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. In the common order impugned in these two appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of two orders-in-original which were appealed before him. In the first Order Nos. 163-64/97-98, dated 6-11-1997, the Assistant Commissioner had held that the spent palladium used by the appellant as catalyst could not be so cleared for regeneration under the provisions of Rule 57F(2). In the second Order-in-Original No.168-69/97-98, the issue before the Assistant Commissioner was the eligibility to duty on the shortages in the palladium between the quantity which was cleared and the quantity, which was received after regeneration.3. In the order impugned in the appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt with the issue in Order-in-original Nos. 163-64/97-98, dated 6-11-1997 whether clearances of palladium were validly made under the permission granted under Rule 57F(2) or not. Out of the total amount ...
Tariq Razi Azmi Vs. the Tata Hydro-electric Supply Co. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR769; 2000BomCR(Cri)211
ORDERD.K. Trivedi, J.1. I have heard this matter at length earlier on 5th July, 1999 and the matter was kept today high on board considering the request that the petitioner wants to submit proposal to the respondent-company for settlement even in respect of action taken against the applicant wherein the petitioner's services were terminated by the company on 30th August 1997 and for which, the petitioner workman had moved the Labour Court challenging the said action which is pending. 2. During the hearing when the matter was called out today, on behalf of the applicant, without prejudice, a proposal submitted by the applicant through the advocate to the Solicitor of the respondent company for settlement incorporating certain conditions by his letter dated 9th July 1999 and the Solicitor after consulting his clients, has communicated the reply to the said proposal vide their letter dated 12th July 1999 indicating that the proposal is not acceptable. Hence, as the proposal of the applica...
American Dry Fruit Stores Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT309Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicants imported "Geranium ART 2401". The classification claimed was under sub-heading 3302.10 of the CETA. The benefit of Notification Nos. 136/86-Cus. was claimed for the Customs duty and of No. 220/86-C.E. was claimed for the CVD. Benefit was denied by the Assistant Commissioner. The applicants approached the High Court. The High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to take a decision according to the law. The Assistant Commissioner in his order denied the benefit of both the notifications. The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld the order, the present appeal and application are before us.2. Shri J.C. Patel, the ld. Advocate for the applicants relies upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of Chandigarh Zinc Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E.-1995 (75) E.L.T. 103 which held that the benefit of a conditional notification issued under the Central Excise Act is available to goods imported for the purpose of additional duty of Customs. As regards the benefit of the Exemption Notificati...
Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1045Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite issue of notice of hearing on 17-4-1999. We have perused the application for condonation of delay and heard the Departmental Representative.2. The appeal against the order of the Commissioner dated 16-6-1998, stated to have been received by the applicant on 1-7-1998 has been filed on 1-2-1999. The explanation offered for the delay of four months is that the order in question was a provisional order and it was by a communication dated 1-12-1998 that the applicant was informed was that it had been finalized. This communication of 1-12-1998 has not been produced. Further the appeal is not against that communication but against the order dated 16-6-1998. There is also no support for the principle that an order provisionally determining the capacity of rolling mills is not appealable.3. For these reasons we decline to condone the delay. Accordingly, the appeal itself is dismissed barred by limitation....
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »