Mumbai Court December 2000 Judgments
Harlal S/O Harchand Pardeshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR547
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Both these petitions have challenged the circular dated 5th of February, 1998 issued by the Director of Education, Maharashtra State at Pune, directing all the Education Officers (Secondary) of Zilla Parishads in the State not to grant approval to the appointments of Assistant Teachers who possess the B.Com. B.Ed. degree unless there is availability of work load in the respective subjects which they have studied up to the graduation level or in economics.2. It has been submitted before us that under section 16 of the Maharashtra Employee of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act, for short), the State Government has framed the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, MEPS Rules) and Rule 6 thereunder prescribes the minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools, secondary schools, junior colleges and junior college of education. In these petitions, we are ...
Tag this Judgment!Maimune Banu Hamidali Khan and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR449; 2001(3)BomCR529
B.H. Maralapalle, J.1. In all the these petitions, a common question of law is involved and hence, these petitions are disposed off by a common judgment.2. In Writ Petition No. 199/1998, agricultural land belonging to the petitioners admeasuring 5 Hectare and 85 Acre in Survey No. 208, 212-A of Latur, was acquired by private negotiations and the possession was taken over on 21-8-1986, whereas, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated thereafter and finally an award came to be passed on 3-5-1990 under the Act. The petitioners also submitted an application under section 18 of the Act. In the meanwhile, the petitioners approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 3003/1996, which came to be disposed off by an order dated 11-7-1996 with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners for payment of rental compensation for the period from 21-8-1986 to 3-5-1990, within the period of four months. The petitioners have received the rental compensation amo...
Tag this Judgment!Sharbat Chand JaIn Vs. Bank of India, Through Its Chairman and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR590a
B.P. Singh, C.J.1. The petitioner herein, an officer of respondent No. 1 bank, has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-bank to open the sealed cover containing the recommendation of the D.P.C. held in May 1995 in respect of the petitioner and to declare the result. He has also prayed for a declaration that the action of respondent No. 1 in withholding the promotion of the petitioner by adhering to sealed cover procedure, and initiating disciplinary proceeding by chargesheet dated 5th January, 1998, is mala fide, illegal and without any authority of law. The petitioner has also prayed for consequential reliefs.2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner joined the respondent bank as a clerk in the year 1965, and, in due course, was promoted to the officer cadre. The petitioner was granted promotions from time to time and in the year 1987, he was promoted to Scale IV, a senior management post. On 30th November, 1992, he was promoted to Scale V, a higher scale, as Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok K. Salame and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)934; 2001CriLJ1555
S.G. Mahajan, J.1. This common judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 1995 and Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 1995. Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 1995 is brought by appellants No. 1 Ashok Kawaduji Salame and No. 2 Ashok Ramrao Bhujbal, who were accused No. 1 and 2 respectively, and Criminal Appeal No; 361 of 1995 is brought by appellant Anil Pundlikrao Badhe, who was an accused No. 3, in Sessions Trial No. 163 of 1993 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. Each of the above accused was convicted of the offences Under Section 376(2)(g), Section 506 read with Section 34 and Section 448 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-or in default to suffer R.I. for six months more for the offence Under Section 376(2)(g), I.P.C., to suffer R.I. for one year for the offence Under Section 506 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and again to suffer R.I. for one year for the offence Under Section 448 read wit...
Tag this Judgment!Sumeet Machines Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT746Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him as barred by limitation after refusing to condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal.2. The explanation tendered to him for the delay was that the difficulty in obtaining documents necessary for the filing of the appeal. These were in the appellant's factory, which was in the possession of a receiver appointed by the Bombay High Court in a suit filed by the State Bank of Hyderabad for recovery of money lent by it to the appellant. It took time to get the documents from the receiver, after the appellant unsuccessfully tried to get copies of the documents from the jurisdictional Superintendent.3. This explanation offered by the appellant is acceptable to us. The delay is three weeks. It does take time to get the copies of the documents necessary for filing the appeal from government offices, including that of the Court Receiver. The reason that the Commissioner (Appeal) advances for not accepting the claim is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC88
This appeal is filed by the above appellant against the above captioned order dated 10.1.94 praying for setting aside the same and order for De novo adjudication, after hearing the appellant.1. The brief facts of case are that squad of Central Excise Officers, Preventive Branch, Head Quarters, Vadodara, under direction of Deputy Collector, arranged for transit check on 8.10.88. During road petrolling, they found a truck in transit at 10.50 a.m., carrying empty drums under the cover of Central Excise GPI No. 1959/8.10.88, issued by the appellant. To verify its correctness, visited appellant's premises, holding Central Excise Licence to manufacture Drums falling under chapter heading No. 73.10 and paying duty of excise 20% adv. under Notification No. 102/88 dated 1.3.1988. During check it was observed that M/s. Gujarat Refinery, Jawahar Nagar had given contract to manufacture drums on job work basis to M/s. Petrochem Steel Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Jawahar Nagar, which on closure gave sub-...
Tag this Judgment!inox Air Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT224Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal E/3121/2000 by Inox Air Products Limited, the manufacturer is against the confirmation by the Commissioner of the duty demanded on nitrogen and craked ammonia manufactured and cleared from its factory at Nasik on the ground that short lifting compensation paid by their sole buyer should form part of the assessable value of the gas. Appeal E/2065/2000 relates to goods manufactured and cleared from the factory at, and is against the order of the Commissioner holding that the interest on advances received by the manufacturer from its buyer, short lifting compensation paid by the buyer and notional interest on the cost of land made available by the buyer to the appellant for it to set up its plant are includible in the assessable value of the goods supplied, oxygen and nitrogen. The third appeal E/3122/2000 by Kamal Kapoor, Manager of the assessee, is against the penalty imposed on him on the same ground.2. The agreement between the appellant and Raymond Steel Limited, the sole ...
Tag this Judgment!Borosil Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT757Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for consideration in this appeal is the includability in the assessable value of glassware manufactured by the appellant the costs for printing calendars. It supplied these calendars to dealers who ordered them, recovering their cost from them. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has held that these calendars constitute advertising material and the cost of such advertising must form part of assessable value of the goods manufactured by the assessee.2. The dealers incurred the costs of the calendars, since it was they who ultimately paid for them, although the cost was initially borne by the manufacturer. The ratio of the Supreme Court's judgement in Philips India Limited v. CCE -1997 (91) E.L.T. 540 that the cost incurred by their dealers for advertising the goods is not to be included in the assessable value will apply, and this cost will not form part of assessable value....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Cus., Acc Vs. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT486Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to the benefit of entry 12 of the Table to Notification 38/94 of the basic engineering technical documents and drawings imported by the respondent. The entry exempts from duty books classifiable under Chapter 90 of the Tariff. The Assistant Collector denied the benefit of the notification which was claimed in the bill of entry filed for their clearance. On appeal against that order, the Commissioner (Appeals) tool the view that the goods were in fact books, and entitled to the benefit of the notification. This is challenged in the appeal.2. On an issue which appears to us identical, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, in Parasrampuria Synthitics Ltd. v. CC - 2000 (119) E.L.T.211, ha; held that the drawings, designs, plans, etc., imported by Parasrampuria Synthetics Limited from its German collaborator were books classifiable under Heading 49.01 and entitled to the exemption under Serial No. 10 of Notification 25/95. .3....
Tag this Judgment!Swami Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT169Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant manufactures metal containers. It manufactured these containers out of cold rolled steel coils. These are cut into required length and thereafter punched or cut into required sizes and shapes of material. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the remnant metal. The manufacturer has claimed this to be scrap and waste metal classifiable under heading 72.04 of the tariff and claimed benefit of Notification 171 /88. The notification exempts from duty waste and scrap arising from goods of Chapter 72, provided no Modvat credit had been taken on the duty paid on these goods. Notices were issued to the manufacturer proposing that the remnants were not in fact scrap but strips. The basis for this allegation was that the goods were described in some of the invoices for their clearance as "CRCA scrap strips" and the goods had been sold at "higher rate" and that "these will be utilised for some other purpose of manufacture of other articles". The asse...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »