Mumbai Court December 2000 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.
Smt. Naseem Imran Mohammed Siddik Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)502; 2001BomCR(Cri)310; (2001)2BOMLR822; 2001CriLJ1619
A. M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. By this petition, the Petitioner-wife of one Imran Mohammed Siddik @ Samad Abdul Kassam Chapra (hereinafter referred to as the detenu), has challenged the order passed by Shri G. S. Sandhu, Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra. Home Department (Preventive Detention) Detaining Authority dated 16.9.1997 passed in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act) whereby the abovenamed detenu was ordered to be placed under detention.2. Although three grounds were pressed at the time of arguments, we would rest our judgement only on one ground, which, in our view, is good enough to quash and set aside the impugned detention order. The, impugned detention order has been assailed before us mainly on the following three grounds viz.. (i) that there is enormous and unexplained delay in execution of the detention order which has inevitably affected the genui...
inox India Limited and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR11
1. The department of Animal Husbandry of Maharashtra State floated a tender for supply of liquid Nitrogen containers for the period 1-7-2000 to 30-6-2001. The tender notice was issued on 18-4-2000 and as there was no response to the said tender a fresh notice was issued in May, 2000. The 5th respondent submitted their tender pursuant to the said notice. As per the guidelines framed by the department; if the response to the tender enquiry is poor i.e. less than 3 quotations, the opening of tender shall be extended further, by two weeks, maximum two such extensions can be granted in case of poor response and finally the tender may be opened even with a single quotation. In view of the above guidelines a fresh notice was issued on 29-6-2000. Under that notification time for submission of the tender was upto 2 p.m. on 13-7-2000. Tender were to be opened at 3 p.m. on the same day. Admittedly the petitioners had not submitted the tender either in April or May 2000. According to the petitione...
Gulabrao Maruti Bhagat Vs. Bhagwan Nana Bhagat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR598; 2001(3)BomCR484
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The present Second Appeal arises out of a suit for partition. Before setting out the facts in so far as they are material, it would be necessary to formulate the substantial questions of law which arise for consideration in this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:i) In view of the presumption (a) of the correctness of entries contained in the Revenue Records under section 157 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and (b) of jointness in the case of a Hindu Undivided Family, was the First Appellate Court justified and correct in rejecting the suit for partition?ii) Were the trial Court and the Appellate Court entitled in law to rely upon the judgment in a prior civil suit which was not inter parts, as evidencing the existence of an earlier partition of 1935, having regard to the provisions of section 43 of the Evidence Act ?iii) Is the suit for partition which was filed by the appellant barred by limitation under Article 110 of the Limita...
Vimal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT123Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants were not present. On earlier occasion also they were absent in spite of notice. We therefore proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of documents on records. We have heard Smt. Reena Arya for the Revenue.2. The appellants imported Audio Magnetic Tape declaring the invoice value at 40 US $ per spool. On investigation with the agent of the manufacturer, it was found that the price list of the manufacturer prescribed the price as 193.24 US $ per spool. It was also found that the marks on the physical goods tallied with the marks given with the price list quoting the higher value. The tapes were found to be of very high quality. Show cause notice was issued proposing enhancement of valuation and confiscation of goods for mis-declaration as also for lack of cover of the licence produced after enhancement of the value.The liability to penalty was also alleged. After hearing the importers the Additional Commissioner passed orders. He recorded that the assessees were not a...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Soma Textiles Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT229Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal was posted for admission. On hearing both the sides I admit the appeal and take up the appeal for final disposal.2. The assessees manufacture textiles. For the packing materials, they had filed declarations under Rule 57G. One declaration was dated 6-9-1996 under which the inputs specifically declared were pipes, tubes etc. falling under Chapter 3917.00. At a later date i.e. on 1-4-1997 they had also shown HDPE rolls as falling under Chapter 3917.00. During the intervening period, the assessees received HDPE films and rolls.The invoice described the goods as falling under Tariff Heading 3917.00. The assessee took credit. This was objected to by the Department. After issue of show cause notice, the Asstt. Commissioner reversed the credit and imposed penalty. The ground was that the goods were not declared. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the inputs had been broadly declared by the appellants as plastic in roll forms. On the ground that minor variation in the descrip...
Precision Instrument Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT99Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for determination in this case is whether the appellant assessees are related persons of their Sole Selling Agent and therefore whether the prices at which the goods are sold by the sole selling agent should be the basis of computation of assessable value of the goods sold by the assessees. Initially the assessees themselves had declared the valuation in Form-IV. They subsequently retracted therefrom and also claimed refund of the differential duty paid. The Assistant Collector denied the refund claim and directed the assessees to continue to file the price lists in Form IV. Two appeals were filed against these two decisions. The Commissioner disposed of the appeals vide a single order. Substantial case law was produced before him to show there was no relationship between the assessee unit and the sole selling agents to invite the coverage of Section 4(1)(A)(iii) of the Act. The Commissioner made two observations. He said that while the judgments covered various facets of...
Benzochem Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC715
1. These applications are for modifications of the Tribunal's stay order.3. The contention advanced by the common counsel for the applicants is that evidence was produced before the Commissioner to show return by M/s. Gitanjali Chemicals of all inputs after processing to M/s. Benzo Chemicals. This point was already made and taken note of when the stay application was heard. We had commented on the complete lack of evidence in support of this claim made before the Commissioner. We are unable to see any flaw in the prima facie refusal therefore to accept the claim. The same claim, with a statement certified by a Chartered Accountant, was made before us. The explanation tendered for not producing it before the Commissioner is that it was not asked for. The material on the basis of which the Chartered Accountant had issued his certificate was also not indicated. This position remains unchanged. We therefore see no reason to modify our order, except to extend the time for deposit by a mont...
Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. Vs. Mr. G.S. Baj, Member, Industria ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)1BOMLR630; [2001(89)FLR714]; (2001)IILLJ298Bom; 2001(1)MhLj853
D. K. Desbmukh, J. 1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 30th June, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 137 of 1994. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition arc on 2.2.1994, the Petitioner displayed a notice of lock-out with the statement of reasons stating therein their intention to effect the lock-out w. e. f. 21.2.1994. Though according to this notice, the lock-out was to be effective on 21.2.1994 the Petitioner suspended work from 2.2.1994 itself. The reason given for suspension of work immediately on 2.2.1994 itself was the atmosphere of violence prevailing in the factory premises on that day. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner was forced to suspend the work immediately from 2.2.1994 because it was not possible, due to the atmosphere of violence, to continue the manufacturing activity in the factory premises. The Respondent No. 2 Union filed a complaint under section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Rec...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)367
Vishnu Sahal, J.1. Since both these matters arise out of the same set of facts and a common impugned Judgment, we are disposing them off by one Judgment.2. Two persons namely Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) and his son Sandip @ Babloo Khairnar (Patil) were charged by the Additional Sessions Judge. Malegaon, District Nasik, in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1997, for offences punishable under sections 302 r/w 34 of the I. P. C., 397 r/w 34 of the I. P. C., 120B. of the I. P. C., 201 r/w 34 of the I. P. C.. section 3 r/w 25 of the Arms Act and section 27 of the Arms Act. Pursuant to the orders passed by D. K. Trivedi, J. on 31.7.1999 in Criminal Application No. 1533 of 1999, preferred at the instance of the State of Maharashtra, on considerations of convenience and no objection by the counsel of the said accused persons, the said case was transferred to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Nasik, with a direction that either he may dispose off the same or assign it for disposal to any other Additio...
Afajal Samasul Ansari and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)852; 2001CriLJ889
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 28th July, 1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 557 of 1992, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :(i) under Section 302 read with 34, I.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer 15 days' S.I.; and(ii) under Section 324 read with 34, I.P.C. to suffer 1 year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer 15 days' S.I.2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under :On 14-2-1992 at about 12.15 to 12.30 a.m. the informant Abdul Jabbar Shaikh P.W. 1, a resident of Aashabibi Kalyan Road, Nasikwala Chawl, Bhiwandi, returned back to Biwandi in his car. When after parking his car, he was proceeding for his house he saw the Appellant-Afajal Ansari easing in front of his house and questioned him, on which the Appellant-Afajal Ansari replied whether th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »