Mumbai Court September 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.
L.B. Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR576; (2000)IILLJ484Bom
ORDERPer D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks an order setting aside the order passed by the State Government dated 27th November, 1998. 2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding the present petition are as follows:- The petitioner is in service of the State of Maharashtra and was working as Inspector of Police. On 17-8-1997 a trap was led by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, in which the petitioner was apprehended accepting cash of Rs. 50,000/-. By an order dated 19-8-1997, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, who admittedly is the appointing authority of the petitioner, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 17-8-1997. It appears that thereafter the petitioner made a representation to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra dated 18-9-1997 for revoking the order placing him under suspension. On 4-4-1998, the Additional Director General of Police passed an ord...
Swati Ravindra Solunke Vs. Ravindra Madhavrao Solunke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom297; 2000(2)ALLMR108; 2000(2)MhLj557
Barde, J.1. The respondent from the proceedings for dissolution of marriage, being Petition No. A. 166/94, decided by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, has filed this appeal against the decree of dissolution passed on 22-4-1995.2. The present respondent - husband filed the petition on the following grounds :--(a) The marriage of the parties took place on 26-5-1990 at Jintoor (District: Parbhani). For the first 2-3 months, Swati - respondent behaved well. At that time, the old mother of the petitioner was staying with them at Aurangabad. The respondent started to give insulting treatment to the old mother of the petitioner. She used to abuse the old mother of the petitioner. When the mother had gone out of the house, she was locking the house and was going out and keeping his mother outside the house for hours together. Her behaviour was of suspicious nature. She was going for picture and hoteling alone. Unknown persons were visiting her and when mother of the petitione...
Shreyas Builders and anr. and Vs. M.D. Kodnani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Bom)527; [2000]242ITR320(Bom); 2000(2)MhLj191
1. These two petitions take exception to the same order passed by the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, both these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding the petitions are as follows : The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2818 of 1994, are the owners of land Survey No. 8990-91/2 C.T.S. 1325 admeasuring about 857.48 sq., meters situate at Parvati, Pune. By an agreement dated April 30, 1992, the owners of the land agreed to sell that land to Shreyas Builders, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1918 of 1993. It appears that the appropriate authority made an order dated July 31, 1992, for compulsory purchase of the property under Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act. That order was challenged before this court by filing Writ Petition No. 348 of 1993 by the transferees, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1918 of 1993 on the ground that the order wa...
Ramesh Jagdish Sharma Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR481; 2000BomCR(Cri)481; (2000)2BOMLR425
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel; Shri S.M. Gupte for the petitioner and Advocate General Shri C.J. Sawant, for the respondents.2. This petition, as initially filed, sought the relief of a writ of mandamus against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 viz. Commissioner of Police and Additional Commissioner of Police, Mumbai directing them to protect the petitioner's life by providing armed police security guard round the clock. Prayer (b) in the petition is for a similar direction to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to take such adequate measures/steps as may be necessary to protect the petitioner's life.3. This petition was filed on 6th April, 1999 and an order was passed on 12th April, adjourning the matter to 20th April, 1999 to enable the Public Prosecutor to obtain instructions. Thereafter the matter was heard on 20th April, 3rd May, and on 5th May, 1999, when this Court passed an order setting out the facts and holding that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. Rule was i...
Bunty Foods (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT400Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three stay applications relate to three appeals arising out of the same order of the Commissioner. These three are taken up together for disposal vide this common order.2. M/s. Bunty Foods (I) Pvt. Ltd. manufactured biscuits on job work basis for M/s. Parle Products Ltd. under an agreement. For quality control and coordination purposes an official of M/s. Parle Products Ltd. used to sit in the factory of M/s. Bunty Foods (I) Pvt. Ltd. On a visit to the premises of the job worker, a quantity of broken biscuits was noticed by the officers. The same was not found to have been entered in the RG1 register and was therefore seized. Later on statements of the people concerned with the two units were recorded.Shri Vinod Jashnani the director of M/s. Bunty Foods, stated that the broken or rejected biscuits were not accounted for in the statutory register nor had any classification declaration been filed in their regard. He stated that the statistics relating to these biscuits were mai...
Narayan Dagadu Patil Vs. Sou. Hirabai Gajanan Mulik and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom68
ORDERPratibha Upasani, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner/original Obstructer against the Respondents (Respondent No. 1 being Original Plaintiff/Decree Holder and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being Original Defendants and Judgment -- Debtors), being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 28th January, 1987, passed by the 6th Addl. District Judge, Pune, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 284 of 1986. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned 6th Addl. District Judge, Pune allowed the appeal of the Appellant/Original Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 herein, Hirabai Gajanan Mulik and directed that she be put in possession of the suit premises by removing the obstruction of the Opponent (petitioner herein) in the execution proceedings of the decree, passed by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 2726 of 1977, which was confirmed in Regular Appeal No. 50 of 1983.2. Few facts, which are required to be stated, are as follows :Respondent No. 1 in the present writ petition, namely, Hirabai G...
Arun Gulab Gavli Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR390
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel: Shri R.W. Adik for the petitioner Arun Gavli and the Advocate-General Shri C.J. Sawant for the Respondents.2. This Petition was heard along with companion Writ Petition No. 364 of 1999 filed by Ramesh Jagdish Sharma for whom we have heard the learned Counsel Shri S.M. Gupte and the learned Advocate-General for the respondents. Since the petitions raised common questions of law, by consent, they were heard together. However, since the facts differ, they are disposed of by two separate Judgments. By consent, however, this Judgment will also cover the legal contentions that are raised in Criminal Writ Petition No. 364 of 1999.3. At the outset, we must indicate the questions of law which arise in the two petitions; one of Arun Gavli and the other of Ramesh Sharma. They are as under:-(i) Whether the protection of life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution includes a right in favour of a person like the petitioner,...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Basf (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT485Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessee manufactures inter alia polystyrene mouldings used as packing material. The initial raw material is styrene monomer. The assessee paid duty on these, which it manufactured classifying them under Heading 3903.10 of the Tariff. Styrene in this form converted into pre-expanded bead by heating is in the presence of steam, when it acquires compressibility. After some further processes this is used in the manufacture of final product. The assessee had availed of the benefit of Notification 53/88. Entry No. 39 of the table to that notification exempts all goods other than of polyurethanes falling under Headings 39.23,39.24 and 39.26 on payment of duty, if they made out of goods falling under Headings 39.01 to 39.15 of the Tariff on which duty has been paid and if such articles are produced out of plastic scrap. Notice was issued proposing to deny the exemption on the ground that the mouldings were manufactured out of pre-expanded polystyrene, which was an article of plastic c...
Vasantrao Dada Patil Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT613Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Adjournment is requested on the ground of ill health of the Advocate of the appellant in E/217/94. After hearing both sides for the appellant in E/333/94, we do not consider adjournment necessary and dispose of both the appeals.2. In each of the orders impugned in the appeal, the Collector has advised each of the appellants before him to deposit the amount collected by it as representing duty in excess of the duty actually paid to Government, by invoking the provision of Section 11D of the Act.3. The Madras High Court has held in Eternit Everest Ltd. v. U.O.I.-1997 (89) E.L.T. 28 that while Section 11D is a valid piece of legislation, there is no machinery to adjudicate, determine and quantify the liabilities and to invoke them until such time the procedure for recovery of Section 11A cannot take place. Paragraph 25 of the judgment is relevant.4. Accordingly without going to the merits whether duty has in fact been collected in excess or not, we hold that the present proceedings fo...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT386Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent had filed a price list in Part I for the compressors manufactured by it. It also filed price list in Part II for the same kind of compressors showing the price lower by assessable value Rs. 150 per compressor than in the Part I price list for sales to bulk buyers.Notice was issued proposing disallowance of the lower price on the ground that the bulk buyers did not constitute a different class of buyer and cannot be distinguished from other wholesale buyers, there cannot be more than one price for the same class of buyer. The notice was alleged that the claim for lower price, that the bulk buyers purchased a substantial quantity had not been justified. The Asstt.Collector declined to accept the assessee's contention that the price was on account of the fact that the bulk buyers constituted a different class because of the quantity of compressors that they purchased, and higher purchases in the past than other buyers. He confirmed the proposal in the notice.2. On appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »