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.
Dallah Albaraka Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajitabh Bachchan and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR122; 2000(1)BomCR805; 2000(2)MhLj417
ORDERF. I. Rebello, J.1. The Decree Holders have moved this Court for leave to execute the decree under section 13 r/w. section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree holders have annexed a certificate from the Master of Queen's Bench Division of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, that the decree for a sum of US$ 1,609,135.00 plus interest/liquidated damages to be assessed, remains outstanding in the sum of US$ 1,457,230.30 with interest/liquidated damages to be assessed. The certificate is dated 5-10-1998. Exhibit 'C' is the Statement of Claim by the decree holders. 2. Judgment Debtors have filed their reply through the constituted attorney of judgment Debtor No. 2. The principle contentions as raised in the said reply is that a decree cannot be executed for the following reasons;i) That the consent given, based on which a decree was passed on admission was not a free consent; ii) That the decree violates the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act; iii) That D...
State represented by P.P., of High Court Vs. Dr. Joaquim Antonio D'Sil ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR609
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The respondent was tried for the death of Sajida Bi aged 18 years while causing miscarriage under section 314 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had examined 8 witnesses in support of the charge. The respondent was acquitted of the charge by impugned judgment and State has come in appeal against the said acquittal. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the respondent had caused the death of Sajida Bi aged about 18 years while terminating the pregnancy in his clinic unauthorisedly. The death is reported to have taken place on 28th November 1989 at about 11.30 a.m. The respondent came to the house of Sajida Bi on the same day at about 5.30 p.m. and informed her father Sayed Abdul Rahim P.W. 3 that she had expired in his clinic at about 10.30 a.m. Sayed Abdul Rahim P.W. 3 wanted that the postmortem of Sajida Bi be conducted and the respondent told him that it will take three days and the dead body will start smelling. The respondent agreed to give de...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Walchand Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT475Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal from Revenue was argued by Shri K.L. Ramteke. The Respondents were represented by Shri R.J. Parekh the ld. Advocate.2. The assessees took Modvat credit on the basis of certain gate passes. The inputs received under these gate passes were for a part of the quantity cleared by the manufacturer, since part of the quantity had been diverted to other users by way of subsidiary gate passes. This credit was objected to by the Department. The assessees cited Board's Circular No. 14/89, dated 17-4-1989 (F.No. 263/19/89/CX) in their favour. The Additional Collector made the following observations in denying the Modvat credit taken. "On going through the concerned Gate Passes, it is seen that the concerned suppliers have issued subsidiary Gate Passes and the documents referred to such particulars, viz. SGP passes No. Quantity issued etc. which are endorsed on concerned Gate Passes, under signature of the Superintendent having jurisdiction over said suppliers. No Gate Pass is an ex...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Bakhtawar Construction Co. (P)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)74ITD442(Mum.)
1. As common issues are involved in these two appeals and were argued together by the common authorised representative of the assessee and the Departmental Representative, the same are decided by this consolidated order for convenience.2. These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue in which the decision of the learned CIT(A) in respect of the applicability of the time-limit laid down by the provisions of s. 153(2A) of the Act has been challenged.3. The facts of the case leading to these appeals, in brief, are that the AO completed the assessments for the asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86 on 19th March, 1987 and 29th March, 1988 respectively. Aggrieved by certain additions to the declared income made in these assessment orders the assessee preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A), who as per his orders dt. 9th June, 1988, and 1st December, 1988, gave certain directions to the AO. The AO thereafter made orders under s. 250, r/w s. 143(3) of the Act for these two assessment years on...
Ebrahim Haji Joonas Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR547; 1999(4)BomCR724; (1999)3BOMLR366; 2000(1)MhLj422
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. The plaintiff and late Shri Ahmed Haji Joonas, hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased', were the co-owners in equal share of the immovable property admeasuring 683.11 sq. mtr. situate at Plot Nos. 96 and 97. Sydenham Road having a total built up area of 2724 sq. mtr., hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'. Ultimately the property was jointly owned between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 14. The plaintiff and defendants partitioned the property by a partition deed dated 20th November, 1990. The joint property is described in Schedule-A to the partition deed. Schedule-B describes the property which came to the share of the plaintiff. Schedule-C gives the details of the property which came to the share of defendant No. 2. Schedule-D gives the property which came to the share of defendant Nos. 3 to 14. After the partition, the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 and the predecessor in title of defendant Nos. 3 to 14 made a joint application for bifurcation of...
Mohammad Ali Abubaker Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR173; 2000(5)BomCR158; 2000BomCR(Cri)158
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. When the petition was filed the matter was very much alive because at pre-detention stage the order passed under National Security Act, popularly known as N.S.A. was sought to be challenged. Inspite of preliminary objection that the matter was filed at pre-detention stage, on 18th June 1996 the matter was admitted after hearing both the sides. Interim relief also came to be granted in terms of prayer clause (b).2. The impugned order was to remain in force for a period of one year. Had the detenu-petitioner, therefore, been detained under the impugned order dated 26th June 1996, the same at the earliest would have to come an end by 26th June 1997 or little later if the actual execution was delayed.3. However, it is an admitted position that till date the order has not been implemented.4. The passage of time has brought about statutory change with regard to the applicability of the said National Security Act, 1980 to the State of Maharashtra. In the year 1981, the ...
B.O.C. India Ltd. Vs. Indian Oxygen Employees Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ472Bom
ORDERA.P. SHAH, J. 1. Rule. 2. Respondents waive service. 3. By consent petition is taken up for final hearing.4. The subject matter of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated July 19, 1999 made by the Industrial Tribunal on the application U-8 in Reference (IT) No. 11 of 1999. 5. The application Exhibit U-8 came to be filed by the respondents in Reference (IT) No. 11 of 1999 pending before the Industrial Tribunal. The said reference under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is made to the Industrial Tribunal pursuant to the order passed by this Court on April 13, 1999. 6. During the pendency of the reference application U-8 has been filed wherein the union has prayed that the employer be directed to produce certain documents mentioned in item Nos. 1 to 11 of the said application. The employer resisted the said application by filing a reply contending inter alia that the application and discovery of documents sought by the union is ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Excel Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT602Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This reference application was argued by Shri Agarwal. The assessee was represented by Shri Phene.2. The application was received on 22-6-1998. The question of law in Column 8 of the Form No. E.A. 6 of the paper book read as follows : "Whether in the light of discussion above Modvat credit can be allowed without filing the declaration under Rule 57G which is a substantial requirement and not a procedural format requirement under Central Excise Rules, 1944." 4. At a later date on 22-3-1999, an amended application was filed in which the question of law was reframed as under : - "Whether the requirement of filing the declaration in a specified form under a specified rule could be considered as complied with in a case where declaration was given in some other document prescribed under a different rule. Specific form is prescribed for specific declaration with a view that declaration given in the form was examined from the angle for which the form is intended. If a declaration is given ...
Prabhakar L. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT482Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This miscellaneous application was argued by Shri S.N. Kantawala the ld. Advocate.2. In the proceedings leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal certain goods imported by the appellants were seized by the Customs authorities. At the request of the importers, pending the completion of proceedings, the seized goods were provisionally released to the importers against bond backed by a bank guarantee. In the impugned order the Commissioner held the goods as liable to confiscation. He observed that the goods were not available for confiscation and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the importer appellants. The Tribunal on hearing the appellants vide order dated 25-9-1998 waived pre-deposit of the penalty imposed and stayed its recovery. It appears that thereafter the importer appellants wrote to the Commissioner seeking discharge of the bank guarantee. This letter was dated 18-1-1999. It appears that the ld. Commissioner did not respond to this communication. The present appl...
Cc Vs. B.B. Verma, Manager, Rajasthan
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)(89)LC301Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this Appeal preferred by Revenue, the issue involved is whether a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act is imposable on Shri B.B.Verma, Manager of M/s. Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. at the material time.2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. (RPSL) imported Poly Propylene Chips and classified them under sub heading No. 3902.10 of the schedule to the Customs Tariff Act and claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification 227/76-Cus. The goods were accordingly assessed and clearance thereof was allowed.Subsequent investigation conducted by the Department at the time of further imports made by the Company led to the issue of show cause notice dated 20.10.1989 for classifying the imported goods under sub heading 3204.17 or 3204.49 as colour master batches, for demanding duty amounting to Rs. 47,53,719/- and for imposing penalty on the Company and Shri B.B. Verma, Respondent, as he masterminded the mischief by deliberate misdeclaration ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »