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.
Pritish R. Tayde and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)950; 2001CriLJ1594
J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP for the respondent No. 1/State.The appellants have approached this Court impugning the decision of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), in initiating prosecution against them, after holding preliminary enquiry Under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by his order dated 2-12-1990. The matter was carried by the appellants/original applicants in Misc. Civil Appeal, before the Court of Additional District Judge, Pusad, impugning the same order. The said Misc. Civil Appeal came to be disposed of with a direction to make appropriate complaint, against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pusad. It is this order which is impugned before this Court.2. The matter arises out of an application moved by the respondents before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pusad, bringing on record that in Reference matter arising out of the Land Acquisition proceedings, i .e., LAC No. 73/1992, t...
The Niranjan Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC489
This appeal is filed by the above appellant against the Order-in-Original No. 24/MP/ 91 dated 25.3.91, praying for setting aside the same.1. The facts of the case in brief are, appellant Company manufactures Cotton, man-made, fabrics and blended yarn under Central Excise License. During the tenure of old owners, Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,49,266.41 P. approximately, on the yarns manufactured in 1977 was evaded by them. Appellant came into picture in 1979. They came to know about it, later on as nothing was reflected in the provisional balance sheet furnished by old owners to the appellants while taking over the charge of the factory. They are answerable to the above charge, through the Managing Director. Appellant was not aware of it. It was brought to the notice of Collector of Central Excise, which was neglected, and decided the case against the appellant. In the appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, fine and penalty imposed on the appellant was set asi...
Hanuman Dudh Vyavasaik Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR505
B. H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties, learned A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Rule.The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 waive service. The respondent No. 5 is personally present and the respondent No. 6 is a formal party and, therefore, the notice is dispensed with. Rule made returnable forthwith and the parties have been heard at length on 27th to 30th November, 2000.2. The petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 5 are the registered village level dairy co-operative societies and the petitioner Nos. 2,4 and 6 are the Chairmen of the respective societies. They have brought in issue the legality, propriety and justifiability of the order dated 9th October, 2000 passed by the respondent No. 5 purportedly under section 77A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the Act), thereby, appointing an Administrative Board (Prashashak Mandal), consisting of three members i.e. the respondent No. 5 himself as the Chairman and two other persons viz. the respon...
Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Hem Paints Private Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT129Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Hem Paints Private Limited, the respondent to this appeal, manufactures paint and varnishes. It had claimed, and been accorded, the benefit of notification 1/93 for the goods manufactured by it.Notice dated 1-4-1994 was later issued to it alleging that it affixed on the containers of these goods the brand name "JK" which belonged, not to it, but to M/s. J.K. Brothers at Morvi, who were not entitled to the benefit of the notification. The notice proceeded to say that by this act, paragraph 4 of the notification, which denies the benefit to goods which bear the brand name of a person other than their manufacturer, was attracted, and went on to demand the duty consequently payable.2. The assessee replied to the notice accepting that it had been using the brand name, but contending that it had not been established that name in question belonged to J.K. Brothers, or was being used by them.It produced an affidavit affirmed by a partner of M/s. J.K. Brothers, stating that the firm ha...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Pack Trade
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT141Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Mahindra and Engineering Products Ltd. imported cyanoacrylic adhesive packed in carbuoys. It passed on this commodity to M/s. Pack Trade, the respondent before us, for filling into metal tubes, each holding 2 or 3 grams, and bearing the label 'Mr. Fixit', for use by the consumer as an adhesive. The substance hardens on exposure to air. It was therefore necessary for the respondent to flush out air from the tubes before filling the adhesive, and thereafter, purge the tubes with nitrogen in order to remove all traces of air.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether this process amounts to manufacture. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), overruling the order of the Additional Commissioner, has held that since no new product emerges, there is no manufacture. This is challenged in this appeal.3. After having heard both sides, we do not find any case for interference. The grounds in the appeal are that repacking of the adhesive is inci...
Rajkamal Wires and Cables Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC713
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 4.42 lakhs, and a penalty of Rs. 7,500 imposed on the applicant.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that Modvat credit could not be taken of the duty shown to have paid on copper bars and rods in certificates issued by M/s. Hindustan Copper Limited, their manufacturer.3. The two decisions of the Tribunal that the representative of the applicant cites, Deui Dayal & Mahindra Corporation v. CCE , and Agarwal Metal Works v. CCE prima facie support his contention, that the instructions of the Board provide that such certificates issued by Hindustan Copper Limited are sufficient for taking credit. The departmental representative's contention that the Board's circular was limited to certificates issued by canalising agencies, and so will not apply, to Hindustan Copper Limited, which is not a canalising agency, is prima facie not acceptable, considering that the second decision spe...
Mrs. PervIn N. Irani Vs. Gift Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2002)81ITD372(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assesses and it pertains to asst. yr.1990-91. The assessee gifted a residential house located at Alibaugh to her brother Shri Viraf Irani on 30th March, 1990. In July, 1988, assessee purchased an agricultural land/Bagayati land with building thereon for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000. The assessee made certain alterations and renovations in 1989 by spending a sum of Rs. 2,48,530 and then the property was gifted to her brother. Though the total cost of the property in the hands of the assessee worked out to Rs. 3,98,530 (cost of plot Rs. 1,50,000 + cost of renovation Rs. 2,48,530), for gift-tax purposes, the assessee showed the value of the gift at Rs. 1,29,058 and in support of this valuation, she furnished a registered valuer's report valuing the property as on 31st March, 1990 at Rs. 1,29,058.2. Since however, the assessee has declared the cost of plot and bungalow as on 31st March, 1990 at Rs. 3,98,530 in the return of income filed for the asst. yr. 1990-91...
Korra Srinivas Rao S/O Krishnamurthy and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)697; 2002(4)MhLj368
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for parties.2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent.3. In all these three petitions, the petitioners are seeking the relief in the nature of quashing the first information reports lodged by the respective Seed Inspectors with the Police at the respective Police Stations, amongst other grounds, on the ground that the said reports do not disclose any cognizable offence.4. In Writ Petition No. 245/2000, the petitioner No. 1 is stated to have been engaged in production, distribution and sale of cotton seeds under brand name 'Bharat Seeds' and for that purpose, carries on business under a concern having name 'Bharat 'S' Lines' and the petitioner No. 2 looks after the said business in Nanded and surrounding areas. It is their case that there is another seed producer by name 'Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd.' having its office at Guntur and processing Plant at Secunderabad and office at Hyderabad. The said company is engaged in production and sa...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Dattanand Refrigeration
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT748Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These 3 appeals and 3 cross-objections relate to 3 orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II. Since the issues are the same, these are being taken up to-gether for disposal. M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. manufacture compressors. Any defects within the inwarranty and out of warranty period are rectified by them. For carrying out the rectification, they have several service centers. M/s. Kirloskar Brothers have agreement with the persons operating such centres. The defective compressors are received by the Area Offices of M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. From there, they are sent to the service centres of that area. The movement of the defective compressors was under the set of documents which show the distinctive number given to each compressor when it initially had left M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. After the defects are set right, the compressor is sent to the area offices from there it was received. The complainant customer does not have to wait for the entire activi...
Forum for Fairness in Education and ors. Vs. Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom136; (2001)2BOMLR138
S. A. Bobde, J.1. These two Petitions, one filed on the Original Side and the other on the Appellate Side of this Court, challenge the appointment of Dr. Augustine Francis Pinto (hereinafter referred to as the '3rd Respondent') as the Sheriff of Mumbai.2. Both these Petitions claim to have been filed in public interest. O.O.C.J. Writ Petition No. 1328 of 2000 is filed by a body called 'Forum for Fairness in Education' and three others claiming to be the President and a member of the Managing Committee of Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 3 Prof. Sandeep Desai has appeared in person in support of the petition. Petitioner No. 4 is described as a social worker. The other Petition i.e. Appellate Side Writ Petition No. 2626 of 2000 has been filed by Narendra Kanji Patel.3. Since both these Petitions challenge the appointment of the 3rd Respondent as the Sheriff of Mumbai they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.4. So far as O.O.C.J. Writ Petition No. 1328 of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »