Mumbai Court October 2000 Judgments
Grace Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT160Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On the submission made by the advocate for the appellant that, he only wishes to raise the ground relating to the quantum of redemption fine and no other aspect of the matter, with the consent of the departmental representative, the appeal has been taken up for disposal.2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has found the declared value of the consignment of assorted consumer goods imported by the appellant, such as toasters, calculators etc. valued at Rs. 7.81 lacs was far too low and enhanced the value to Rs. 25.65 lacs. He has ordered confiscation of the goods under Clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act and given the importer an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 9.00 lacs.3. The plea advanced in support of the prayer for reduction of the redemption fine is that the goods have been under detention by the Customs from May, 2000 till now after they were imported in May. The show cause notice was issued in July, replied to the notice on the next day and the matter a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vijaya Raju Gupta Vs. Shri R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)48; 2001CriLJ893; 2001(1)MhLj449
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By means of this writ petition filed by the wife of the detenu, the detention order passed by the 1st respondent under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short the said Act) is being challenged. The respondent No. 1 by the detention order dated 14.10.1999 ordered detention of the detenu Raju Baburam Gupta to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. Though Mr. S. R. Chitnis, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised several legal contentions, in our view in the facts of the present case, this criminal writ petition deserves to be allowed on the ground which we indicate hereinafter.3. From the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu, it is apparent that the detenu is accused in C. R. No. 221 of 1999 for offences underSections 342, 324, 387, 506(2), 114 of the I.P.C. r./w. Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act r...
Tag this Judgment!Kishore Narsingh Alias Hiralal Shah and ors. Vs. Prakash Narsingh Shah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR395; (2001)2BOMLR1
D. G. Deshpande, J.1. The Plaintiffs are the children of one Sushilabai and they have filed the suit for declaration that they are the members of Joint Hindu Undivided family of late Narsingh alias Hiralal Shah, who was their father and for share in his property and for other Incidental reliefs.2. The case of the plaintiffs in short is that deceased Sushilabai Shah was the second wife of Narsingh Shah who was also known as alias Hiralal Shah, and the defendants are the children of the first wife of Narsingh Shah from the deceased Smt. Banubai. According to the plaintiffs after the death of Narsingh Shah they have become entitled to a share in his property being the legal heirs. Narsingh Shah died in 1953 but he was married to Sushilabai in 1935 and till his death Narsingh Shah was paying maintenance to Sushilabai and after Narsingh Shah Banubai paid the maintenance and after her death the defendants paid the maintenance but since the defendants suddenly stopped paying maintenance, they...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sarla Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom159; 2001(2)BomCR730; 2001(1)MhLj453
J.N. Patel, J. 1. This group of petitions involve a common question as to whether the Returning Officer is vested with any right to add to amend, vary or rescind the result of election after the same is declared by him under Rule 34 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Election Rules, 1959 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1959) and, therefore, these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Facts in W.P. No. 2697/2000 : The petitioner impugns the Corrigendum/order dated 10-6-2000 issued by the respondent-Returning Officer under which he modified the results of the election of the Gram Panchayat, Umali, Taluka Malkapur, District Buldhana, which were held on 9-6-2000. The petitioner contested the said election from Ward No. 1 which is multimember constituency comprising of three seats. Out of three seats, one is reserved for Other Backward Class candidate, one for Woman General category and the remaining one was open. The petitioner contested the election from Wom...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd. Vs. Chembra Estates and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom170; 2001(1)BomCR821; [2001]105CompCas35(Bom); 2001(2)MhLj206
R.J. Kochar, J.1.The above chamber summonses are the offshoot in Suit No. 954 of 1987. I am called upon to decide the above chamber summonses when the suit itself, being a bank suit, has stood transferred from this court to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) established under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act), on and from December 16, 1999. A very strange and curious situation has arisen before me. The main suit proceedings are not in my hands while its offshoots are praying for appropriate orders at my hands. Though this court has no jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions this court is called upon to decide the above chamber summonses taken out as interlocutory proceedings in the above suit which has already been transferred to the DRT as contemplated under Section 17 and Section 18 read with Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Amarchand Lalchand Shingavi Vs. Sharda Laxman Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR720; [2001(90)FLR639]; (2002)IVLLJ287Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This is an appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against an order dated April 10, 1997, passed by the Ex-officio Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and Judge of the Labour Court at Aurangabad. By the impugned order, the respondent, who was the applicant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, has been granted compensation in the amount of Rs. 27,210/- along with penalty and interest, as directed in the impugned order. Briefly stated, the material facts of the case are that the deceased Laxman Nana Pawar was alleged to be a 'workman', employed by the appellant. The case of the respondent was that on January 7, 1986, the workman received a personal injury, in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment which resulted in his death. The cause of injury alleged was that while the deceased was taking a bullock cart full of cotton bales to the market, it met with an accident and he fell down from cart. The respo...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Nanuram S/O Mohanlal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR193
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Verma, respondent No. 1 in person.2. The petition is directed against the order dated 6-9-1999 passed by the Industrial Court in Revision (U.L.P.) No. 37/99 whereby revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 3-12-1998 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 155/92 was dismissed as not maintainable.3. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before Labour Court under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act challenging dismissal of his service. The service of the respondent No. 1 was dismissed after conducting regular departmental enquiry. The respondent No. 1 challenged the enquiry mainly on the ground that same is not conducted fairly, properly and as per principles of natural justice. Hence, findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are p...
Tag this Judgment!Veronica Laboratories Ltd. and ors. Vs. State Industrial and Investmen ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR642
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. By these proceedings, the appellant seeks to challenge an order dated 16-3-1998 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, declining to grant interim relief to the appellant in a suit instituted by the appellant. The appellant has impugned in the suit two notices which were issued by the State Industrial & Investment Corporation of Maharashtra on 17th July, 1997 and on 19th August, 1997. By the first notice of 17-7-1997, the respondent recalled the principal amount of the loan advanced to the appellant and the interest, thereon, totally amounting to Rs. 56,94,622/-. By the take over notice dated 19-8-1997, the respondent sought to exercise the powers conferred upon it under section 29(1) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, by taking over possession of the assets mortgaged or hypothecated to the respondent.The trial Court initially granted an order of status quo, which it vacated, by the impugned order dated 16-3-1998, while declining the appli...
Tag this Judgment!Bagaria Vegetables Products Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Aurangabad Municipa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR136; 2001(2)BomCR746
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. Its registered office is situated at Aurangabad. The petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of the petitioner No. 1 company.2. The petitioner No. 1 carries on the business of Cotton Seed Oil. It has its own factory for refining Cotton Seed Oil, wherein, according to the petitioners, impurities of Cotton Seed Oil are being removed after refining. For doing the work of refining in its factory, the company is required to import Cotton Seed Oil, which after its due refining, is exported by the petitioners outside the limits of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad.3. The Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 149 read with section 127 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, framed Rules relating to Octroi. These Rules are known as 'The Aurangabad City Municipal Corporation Octroi Rules' (for short, hereinaf...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Subhangi Tukaram Sawant Vs. R.H. Mendonca and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)68; 2001CriLJ4873
R.M. Lodha J.1. The detention order issued by respondent No. 1 bearing No. 551/PCB/Zone-IX/1999 dated 16th November. 1999 being annexure 'A' is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition at the instance of wife of the detenu. The detenu Tukaram Bhaskar Sawant has been ordered to be detained under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords. Bootleggers, Drug offenders and Dangerous Persons Act. 1981 (for short the said Act) to prevent him from indulging in the activities in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. Though Mr. Chitnis the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised several legal contentions, in our view on the facts of the present case the writ petition deserves to be allowed on the sole ground that the petitioner was not supplied the complete in camera statements particularly the verification made by the Assistant Commissioner of police and therefore the various legal contentions raised by the learned senior Counsel...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »