Mumbai Court November 2000 Judgments
Deputy Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation and anr. Vs. General Secr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR933]; (2001)ILLJ874Bom
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The first appeal has been preferred by the Deputy Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and also Manager, E.S.I. Corporation against the judgment and order dated March 31, 1986 passed by Judge E. I. Court, Sangli to the extent the said Court directed the employees of S.T. Corporation that they would be liable for deduction from their wages by way of contribution to E.S.I. Authorities as per Rules from the date of the order onwards i.e. after April 1, 1986. In nutshell, the grievance of the appellants in this first appeal is that the E.I. Court ought to have directed the employees of S.T. Corporation that they would be liable for deduction from their wages by way of contribution to E.S.I. Authorities with effect from the date E.S.I. Act has been made applicable to S.T. Corporation and concerned category of employees. The Government of Maharashtra issued Notification No. ESI/1679/2670/PH-15 dated October 26, 1981 appointing November 1981 to be the day on which all the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmalabai W/O Uttam Dhanai Vs. Uttam S/O Rambhau Dhanai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR905
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This petition arises from the judgment and order dated 27-12-1990 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 107 of 1990. By the impugned order, the Revisional Court has set aside the order of maintenance dated 31-3-1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kannad ordering the respondent No. 1 to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- to the petitioner with effect from 17-10-1988.2. While assailing the impugned order, it is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that there was no fair opportunity available to the petitioner to meet the case put forth by the respondent No. 1 in the course of evidence, as the same was not pleaded in the reply to the application for maintenance filed by the petitioner. In spite of the fact that various pleas taken by the respondent No. 1 being proved to be false and that the trial Court has held on analysis of the evidence that the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Govind Bhide Vs. Smt. Rohini Bhide
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC646
Ranjana Desai, J. 1. In this appeal judgment and order dated 24.1.2000, passed by the learned Single Judge in F.A. No. 377 of 1990 is under challenge. The appellant is the original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status in S.C. Suit No. 3378 of 1983.2. S.C. Suit No. 3378 of 1983, out of which the present appeal arises, was filed by the plaintiff-wife against the defendant-husband for a mandatory injunction for removing him along with his belonging from Flat No. 9, Datta Vijay Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Mahatma Phule Road, Mulund (East) Bombay-400 081 ('the suit flat' for short).3. Before we deal with the merits of the case, it will be necessary to state that during the pendency of the instant proceedings, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is dissolved by a decree of divorce. Since the suit pertains to a flat to which both the plaintiff and the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Lilawati Suresh Mange Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1158; 2001CriLJ862
A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, Shri Suresh Shankarlal Mange @ Suresh Manaji Mange @ Bhanushali. (hereinafter referred to as the Detenu for the sake of brevity), has challenged the detention order passed by G. C. Tripathi, Principal Secretary of State of Maharashtra, Home Department (Appeals and Security) and Detaining Authority, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA).2. Although various contentions were raised before us during the course of arguments, however, we have confined the present judgment on the issue of delay in considering the representation by the Detaining Authority, as in our view, this petition would succeed on this sole ground.3. The relevant facts for the adjudication of the issue raised before us are that that the Detaining Authority passed the impugned d...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B. and anr. Vs. Industrial Court and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR566; (2002)IVLLJ292Bom
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Kankale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 1, and Shri Ghare, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.2. The petition is directed against the order dated January 24, 2000 passed by the Industrial Court and order dated June 12, 1998 passed by the Labour Court. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that respondent No. 1 filed Complaint (ULP) No. 139/1997 before the Labour Court challenging termination of his service and moved an application under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act for grant of interim relief. The learned counsel contended that the Labour Court at the interlocutory stage without adjudicating the matter on merits, recorded a final finding that respondent No. 2/complainant had worked for more than 240 days in a year before terminati...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Midi Tools Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(96)LC175Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The bench, after hearing this appeal in 1993, referred it to the President for constituting a larger bench to consider the question as to whether, in cases, where a small scale notification is concerned, the period for limitation would run from the date of payment of duty, or the closure of the financial year. The larger bench in its decision has noted the decision of an earlier larger bench, that limitation would run from the date of payment of duty, and not from the closure of the financial year, and returned the appeal for decision by the referring bench.2. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Collector (Appeals) holding contrary view is set aside and the order of the Assistant Collector restored....
Tag this Judgment!Apex Electrostatics Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT210Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant filed a classification list effective from 15-7-1987 for "parts of transformers in partly assembled condition consisting of following materials : The benefit of Notification 160/86 was claimed. The notification exempts from duty goods classifiable under heading 85.04 other than transformers and chokes for fluorescent tubes. The classification claimed was approved.2. The department issued a notice on 2-9-1993 to the appellant, proposing withdrawal of the benefit of the exemption that had been availed of by the appellant for the goods cleared between 7-8-1988 and 30-9-1989. The notice alleged that what was cleared by the appellant was in fact transformers to which the benefit of notification was not available. The basis for this allegation was that the appellant had described, in the gate passes which were issued, the goods cleared by it as "semi-finished transformers." The extended period contained in the proviso under Section 11A(1) of the Act was invoked, alleging mi...
Tag this Judgment!Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cus., Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT227Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs imposing on the appellant a penalty of Rs. 26.84 lacs under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The appellant had reimported a consignment of cefaclor suspension and capsules, which was found unsuitable by the consignee, an associated firm of the appellant in the Irish Republic. In the Bills of Entry filed for clearance, the goods were described correctly as cefaclor pharmaceutical capsule and suspension. The Central Excise tariff heading indicated for the purpose of levy of additional duty of Customs was 3003.20. The goods were cleared on the basis of this classification claimed. No additional duty of Customs was levied, as no duty was payable under the heading. Subsequently, the department issued notice alleging short levy of duty. The notice alleged, rightly, that the goods were classifiable, not under sub-heading 32 of Heading 3003, but under sub-heading 20. It is on this basis that the Commissioner has imposed...
Tag this Judgment!L and T Switchgear Works and anr. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(95)LC541Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeals are taken up for disposal, with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. These two appeals are filed by Switchgear Works and Bottle Closure Division of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. In the order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner in his orders (adjudicating upon notices issued to each of these divisions) that the benefit of notification 67/95 was not available to goods removed from Switchgear Works to Bottle Closure Division, and imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on Switchgear Works and Rs. 10,000/- on Bottle Closure Division.3. The advocate for the appellant agrees that the notification was not available, but contends that, in that event, modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs could be utilised towards duty demanded. This submission has to be accepted. In a number of decisions of which we need cite one, Shriji Chemicals v. CCE , the Tribunal has held that where credit was not taken for the...
Tag this Judgment!Opal Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT357Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the import of a consignment of quartz table clocks made by the appellant could be permitted under the provisions of Open General Licence (OGL for short), as claimed by the importer, or whether it was consumer goods, import of which was prohibited, as held by the Commissioner in the order impugned in this appeal.2. The Commissioner, in his order, has invoked the provisions of paragraph 156 of the Import Policy as on the date of importation. This prohibited import of consumer goods, whether in completely knocked down condition/semi knocked down condition or ready to assemble sets or in finished form except against the licence or in accordance with the public notice issued in this regard.3. The contentions of the importer in the appeal (who is absent and unrepresented despite notice) are as follows. The import was in the form of component parts, which had been assembled into clocks by means of complex operations requiring skill....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »