Mumbai Court November 2000 Judgments
Smt. Rehana Firoz Khan Vs. Shri M.N. Singh Commissioner of Police Grea ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)217; 2001BomCR(Cri)453; (2001)1BOMLR438; 2001CriLJ1018
ORDERA. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this petition, the Petitioner, who is the wife of detenu Firoz Khan alias Muttu Sulaiman Khan, has assailed the order of detention dated 10th August, 2000 passed by the Commissioner of Police in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords. Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act). 2. Although various contentions have been raised in the writ petition and also during the course of argument before us, however we have preferred to confine ourselves in the present judgment only to one question as in our view, the same is good enough to allow the petition and quash and set aside the impugned detention order. 3. The short ground on which the present petition should succeed is articulated is ground (H) of the writ petition, which reads thus : '(H) The Petitioner submits that the Detenu has been supplied with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Petroleum Employees' Union an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR464; (2001)1BOMLR693; (2001)IILLJ81Bom
ORDERB. N. Srikrishna. J.1. Admit. Notice made returnable forthwith. Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel, waives service for the Respondents. By consent. Appeal called out and heard.2. This Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15th November, 2000 rejecting prayer clause (a)(1) made in the Notice of Motion taken out by the Appellant. Though the Appeal came up before us for admission, considering the importance of the issues that were raised up in the Appeal, we have heard the Counsel on both sides at length and propose to dispose of this Appeal finally by a judgment at this stage itself.3. The Appellant is an industry engaged in the manufacture of petroleum products including Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG). It employees a large number of workmen in its establishments engaged in manufacturing and distribution of its products. The Appellant Corporation, a Government Company, had entered into a long term settlement prescribing the conditions of service of its work...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and anr Vs. Bharat Petroleum Employe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR819
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. In the morning we have delivered a judgment holding that a civil suit cannot be brought to interfere with the right of workmen to go on strike. A writ petition is now presented to us by the petitioners, which is a Government company in the Public Sector, to seek the same reliefs.2. Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, opposed the writ petition on five grounds. First, he says that section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 would bar the writ petition from being entertained. In our view, the contention has no merit. Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, or any other section worded in similar fashion, cannot come in the way of the constitutional Court exercising its constitutional powers.3. Second, it is contended that writ petition ought not to be entertained because there are disputed questions of fact. As far as the present case is concerned, the fact that there is a strike notice given by the trade unions and that there are pending conc...
Tag this Judgment!Ashokkumar JaIn and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. and V.N. Mit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR332; 2001(2)BomCR686
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The original writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1625 of 1993 was filed by Ashok Kumar Jain & Co. through its proprietor Rampal K. Jain, in which orders dated 19th January, 1990 and 16th March, 1993 respectively passed by the competent authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and in an appeal there against were sought to be impugned. The writ petition was admitted and ad interim stay in terms of prayer Clause (c) was granted by an order dated 27th October, 1993. On 27th April, 1994, the ad-interim order was confirmed. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that though the shop which he was occupying being Shop No. 9 situated on the premises of the Central Railway at Thane was protected by the interim order passed by this Court, the shop came to be demolished on 28th July, 2000.2. An affidavit in reply has been filed in these proceedings by Mr. Vijay Kitke, Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) (M.T.P.), of ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Piramal Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(95)LC361Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals are filed by the Revenue. We have seen the authorisation made by the Jurisdictional Commissioner in terms of Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In this authorisation the Ld. Commissioner has not given a specific opinion in terms of the aforesaid provision that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not 'legal or proper'.2. In this situation a number of appeals have been dismissed by a number of Benches of the Tribunal. When we asked Smt. Reena Arya Ld.SDR why this appeal should not meet the same fate, she relied upon the Tribunal Judgement in the case of CCE, Bombay v. Nelco Ltd. 2000 (37) RLT 611 (CEGAT). In this judgement in the face of the Supreme Court Judgement in the case of CCE v. Rohit Pulp Paper Mills 1998 (27) RLT 201 (SC) : 1998 (78) ECR 257 (SC) the Tribunal in identical circumstances has held such defective authorisation as empowering the filing of an appeal.3. We have seen the cited Judgement. We have also seen the cited Supreme Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Sunrise Zinc Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT178Tri(Mum.)bai
The appellants imported 70.40 MT of Di Phosphoric Acid and filed a Warehousing Bill of Entry. The goods were accordingly warehoused on 11-7-1995. The normal period of bonding at the material time was one year. Goods cleared after the normal period would attract levy of interest in terms of Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The importer cleared 50 Metric Tonnes of the material before the expiry of one year leaving a balance of 20.40 MT.3. On importation the importers had claimed project import concession for these goods. This was denied by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 8-3-1996. This order was reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 10-4-1996. Thus the eligibility of these goods under heading 98.01 was established for about three months before the expiry of the normal (bonding) period. The importers however did not clear these goods but sought further extensions upto 10-7-1997. On the expiry of the extended period the Assistant Commissioner vide ...
Tag this Judgment!Baijanath Plastic Products Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(95)LC505Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today application for stay has been posted for hearing. After hearing the arguments on both the sides, I have taken up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the parties and after waiving the pre-deposit.2. The appellants are manufacturing various plastic moulded parts of refrigerator and also furniture falling under Chapter sub-heading No.8418 and 9403 respectively. The goods manufactured by the appellants, however, exclusively supplied to M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd. a well known manufacturer of the refrigerating products for being used in the manufacture of refrigerators and the goods manufactured by the appellants suffered excise duty.3. It would appear that out of such duty paid plastic moulded parts of refrigerator manufactured and supplied by the appellants to the refrigeration company, some products such as chiller tray inner, chiller tray outer, crisper tray, bottle shelf, PDP shelf etc. found to be defective and hence M/s. Godrej returned...
Tag this Judgment!Phil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT206Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These 4 appeals have common facts and are disposed of together vide this single order.2. M/s. Phil Corporation Ltd. imported two consignments of Konika Video Cassettes type E-180 SSG-03. The width on examination was found to be 12 mm. The importability under the Import Trade Control provisions was examined. At the material time, the ITC-HS classification of such goods was as follows : Exim Item Basic Customs Policy Condition Public code Descri- Duties Notice ption1.85.23. 3/4 & 1" 25 2.5 16,4 Free - 3 video 1/2 25 2. 16 4 Free 4. 5.85.23.90 video85.23.90 . 8mm -do- -do- -do- Res-tricted Consumer Import03.30 Video (SAARC gods not permit- tapes/ free) cass- to be im- against ettes in ported ex- Special finished cept against Import form a licence or Licence (blank) in accor- (SIL) dance with Licence85.23.90 .Other -do- -do- -do- Res-tricted 6. 7. (SAARC 3. The importers claimed classification under 85.23.9003.20, such goods being freely importable. The Customs felt that the classi...
Tag this Judgment!Sachdeva Steel Products Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT547Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals have came up for admission along with stay petition. I propose to dispose of the appeals themselves at this stage itself.2. The appellants M/s. Sachdeva Steel Products are engaged in the ship breaking activity. They were availing the Modvat credit. On 24-12-1996, the appellants were carrying 15.660 MTs of iron & steel scraps out of the activities carried out by them and on check it was found that the driver did not have the duplicate copy of the invoices with him. The officers accompanied the driver and went to the plot of the assessee.On check of the records it was found that the assessee not paid or debited the duty in the Central Excise records and the 3 invoices viz.985, 986 & 987 did not suffer the excise duty. The goods as well as the lorries were seized. Statements were recorded. Show cause notice dated 21-6-1997 was issued on the ground that the driver of the truck does not have the duplicate copy of the invoices. It was also mentioned in the sho...
Tag this Judgment!imran @ Raju Munna Qureshi Vs. Shri A.N. Roy, Commissioner of Police, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)308; 2001BomCR(Cri)450; (2001)1BOMLR441; 2001CriLJ1062
A. M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. The petitioner has taken exception to the order passed by Shri A. N. Roy. Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai dated 196th May, 2000 in exercise of powers under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. Although several grounds were raised in the writ petition, we have confined the discussion only to ground (A) raised in the writ petition which reads thus : '(A) The petitioner says and submits that the detenue is a Maharashtrian and understands, Marathi language only. The detenu has studied upto Std. V in Marathi medium. The petitioner says and submits that the Detaining Authority, has furnished the order of detention, grounds of detention and other documents of the compilation in English language along with their. Marathi translation. The petitioner says and subm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »