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.
Moon Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT543Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the parties appeal praying for the quashing of the above captioned Order-in-Original dated 18-5-1994 of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad.1. The facts of the case in brief are that on 4-7-1991 Central Excise (P) Officers of the Head Quarters, Ahmedabad visited the factory of the appellants on the basis of the intelligence and withdrew certain records for scrutiny, which prima facie revealed the production and suppression. The Managing Director Shri Virapure of the appellant in his statement under Section 14 of the Customs Act, dated 8-7-1991 stated that they were manufacturing decorative laminated sheets with L-4 licence. In their balance sheet for 1989-90, they have shown raw materials worth Rs. 79,17,565/- including the value of the opening stocks and purchase during the year, out of which they produced laminated sheets of decorative and cut pieces to the tune of Rs. 26,94,815. After considering the value closing stock of raw materials, value of goo...
Vegetable VitamIn Foods Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT467Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufactured glycerine. At the material time sub-heading 1506.11 of the CETA covered crude (unrefined) glycerine and sub-heading 1506.12 provided for refined glycerine. The assessees had filed classification lists showing their product as falling under sub-heading 1506.11 describing the same as crude glycerine (unrefined).These goods were sold to M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. in terms of a contract and the prices were filed and got approved in proforma II. The contract described the goods as "semi finished glycerine". The specification showed the glycerol content as 97.3%.2. On 18-4-1990 a sample was drawn of such product. The Chemical Examiner's Laboratory reported that the sample was refined glycerine. A Show Cause Notice was issued alleging that the goods were refined glycerine which commanded a higher value. The comparative value of refined glycerine of another manufacturer was taken. The Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery of differential duty. The Assistant Co...
Central Bank of India Vs. Manipur Vasant Kini
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom409; 1999(4)ALLMR217; 2000(1)BomCR215; [2000]102CompCas412(Bom); 2000(1)MhLj744
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The plaintiff Bank, on an application by the defendant had issued to the defendant a Credit Card. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant has used the Card. However, he has failed and neglected to pay the amounts due and payable to the bank in terms of the agreement between the bank and the defendant. The agreement, it is contended, are the terms and conditions which the defendant agreed to abide by at the time he applied for the card. It is contended that a holder of a card can purchase goods/material by using the card and without actual payment of money. The bank in turn reimburses the seller for the value for which the card was used. The card contains an upper limit to the extent which it can be used. As per the terms and conditions on failure to pay the amount within the stipulated date the holder of a card has to pay a service charge depending on the contract or as per the policy followed by the bank from time to time. The amount so payable...
Udhav Jayram Katarnavare Since Deceased by His Heirs Vs. Shri Bhima Ju ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR90; 1999(3)MhLj598
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard Mr. Karandikar for the petitioners and Mr. Shastri for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 19th September 1985 by which the order of Tahsildar and A.L.T. dated 31-8-1961 was declared as a nullity order and matter was remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh inquiry and decision according to law.3. The proceedings before the Additional Mamlatdar and A.L.T. were started at the instance of the petitioner and one Shankar Jangal under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as the Tenancy Act). They came to be decided by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. in August 1961 in favour of the petitioner and they were on the basis of the revenue record in which the name of the petitioner was shown as a tenant or a protected tenant. Shankar Jangal was also one of the parties to the said proceedings as tenant No. 2 and landlord was Ganpatrao Narayanrao Vinc...
Suresh Ganpat Mundhe and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR40; 2000BomCR(Cri)40; 1999(3)MhLj951
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 22-2-1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, is Sessions Case No. 415 of 1994, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter:(i) Under section 363 r/w section 366 r/w section 34 I.P.C. to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo 3 months R.I.; (ii) Under section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I. In addition, the appellant Suresh Ganpat Mundhe has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 1 year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I. for the offence under section 506(II) I.P.C. and the appellants-Sunil Dadu Pr. Khandale, Balu Chudaman Gaikwad and Sanjay Sonaji Dongare to undergo 1 year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to suffer 3 months R.I. under section 34 I.P.C. for the offen...
Raja S/O Dr. S.P. Upadhyay Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR847; 1999(3)MhLj397
ORDERJ.N. Patel, J.1. This Revision is preferred by the original accused impugning the order dated 19-3-1997 of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, under which the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by the non-applicant No. 2/complainant against the order of dismissal of complaint and discharge of the accused by the trial Court in Complaint Case No. 28/94.2. The non-applicant No. 2 filed a complaint case against the applicant/ accused on 14-1-1994 for having committed offences under section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act'). The complaint was registered and the learned Magistrate issued process under section 138 of the NI Act against the applicant/ accused. It so happened that when on the date, i.e., 5-4-1995, the case was fixed for hearing, the non-applicant/complainant remained absent. It was kept back till 1.30 p.m., in the afternoon and as none appeared for the non applicant/c...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. D.C.L. Polyester Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT333Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals have identical facts and involve apart from question of law, substantial questions of chemical process. Shri Nankani, Counsel representing to the Respondents is engaged in another Court. On perusal of the impugned orders and also the appeal memorandum it appears that it is necessary to appreciate the chemical reactions involved in the process of manufacture and to judge whether they fall within the ambit of exclusion stipulated in the concerned notification.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order appears to have relied upon a technical opinion presented before him from a Technical Institution in Nagpur. In the appeal memorandum a discussion of the chemical process has been made without reference being made to the opinion. The Revenue have not placed on record copy of the opinion relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). This is not a very satisfactory situation.3. To give both sides an opportunity to produce technical literature amplifying the scope o...
Century Plyboards (India) Ltd. Vs. the Advertising Standards Council o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR665; 2000(1)BomCR136; 1999(3)MhLj543
ORDERS.S. NIJJAR, J. 1. Leave under Rules 147 and 148 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (O.S.) Rules, 1980 is granted to the plaintiffs to take out the Notice of Motion in terms of the draft Notice of Motion handed in Notice of Motion made returnable on 3rd September, 1999. Defendant waives service of Notice of Motion. 2. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from acting in furtherance of the two orders dated 24th December, 1998 and 29th April, 1999. Notice of Motion has been taken out for restraining the defendants from acting in furtherance of the aforesaid two orders during the pendency of the suit. 3. The defendants are a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. They have been permitted to drop the word limited after obtaining approval from the Central Government under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The main objects of the defendants are set out in its Memorandum of Association. The Consumer Complaints Counci...
The Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Limited Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR116; 2000(1)BomCR268; [2000]99CompCas181(Bom)
ORDERF.I. REBELLO, J.1. The matter was heard before Notification was issued under Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and placed for orders, hence the present order.2. In Summons for Judgment taken out by the plaintiffs, a financial institution, defendants have filed their reply and have raised various defences. One of the averments in the affidavit was that Suit No. 1856 of 1996 filed against D.K. Chemoplast Limited, the principal debtor be stayed as it was declared sick by B.I.F.R. The present defendants are guarantors for the said loan. Though the point was not specifically raised at the hearing, the issue arose as to whether the suit against guarantors who have given guarantee to a company against whom proceedings are pending under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 or orders passed therein can be continued with or proceeded with. On behalf of the plaintiffs, their learned Counsel points out that the matter is no longer in issu...
Mrs. Anandi Laxman Patil Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Polic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR35; 2000BomCR(Cri)35; 1999CriLJ4481; 1999(3)MhLj596
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who styles herself as the sister of the detenu Shrirang Gajanan Patil, has impugned the detention order dated 17th February, 1999, passed by the 1st respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Person Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) ( Amendment 1996).2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 17th February, 1999 was served on the detenu on 19-2-1999. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'C' respectively to this writ petition.3. We have heard Mr. Shirish Gupte for the petitioner and Mr. S.G. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for respondents.4. The prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »