Mumbai Court February 2000 Judgments
Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Bombay Vs. Sterlite Industries (I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom204; 2000(3)BomCR347; 2000(2)MhLj181
ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he refused to grant decree in terms of the minority awards and repelled all the objections to the majority awards raised under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) and ordered decrees in terms of the majority awards.2. The appellants-Maharashtra State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'M.S.E.B.' for short), are Statutory Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Supply Act' for short) which inter alia is engaged in distribution and supply of electricity within the State of Maharashtra.3. In the discharge of its duties under the Supply Act, the appellants frames schemes for generation, distribution and supply of electricity in accordance with the policy of the State and its schemes include rural electrification for the purpose ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Dalichand Jugraj JaIn Vs. M/S. Madhu Wool Spinning Mills and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR753; 2000(3)MhLj843
ORDERA.B. Palkar, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of money. According to theplaintiff on 18-2-1974 at the request of the defendants a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was advanced. According to the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was advanced to the defendants on 25-1-1974 and a sum of Rs. 5000/- on 5-1-1974 and separate receipts have been executed. On further request of the defendants a loan of Rs. 54,125/- was also advanced on 16-9-1974 and lastly on 18-9-1974 further sums were advanced. Thus the total amount advanced to the defendants was Rs. 1 lakh including the earlier advances for which an agreement was executed by the defendants. On 20-9-1974, defendant No. 1 returned pay order for Rs. 54,125/- and requested the plaintiffs to pay thesaid amount in cash. Accordingly on 23-9-1974 the plaintiff took back the said pay order and gave cash of Rs. 54,125/-. The defendants have repaid Rs. 34,000/- during the period 1-11-1975 and 1-12-1976 details of which are stated in Exh. H annexed to the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Srikrishna Keshav Kanerkar and ors. Vs. Century Spinning and Weaving C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ65Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated August 12, 1993 by which the petition was dismissed. 2. Though Mr. Gonsalves, with his characteristic ability, attempted to persuade us to interfere with and reverse the findings of facts recorded by three Courts below, we refrain from doing so. We may point out that the rival cases of the contending parties were tried by the Labour Court, which recorded findings that the appellants were absent from work for a period from January 18, 1982 to the middle of year 1984. It also found in favour of the employer that the show cause notices had been dispatched to the appellant employees for participation in a strike which had been declared to be illegal. It also accepted the respondent employer's case that in the circumstances of the case it had to be concluded that the documents were despatched to the concerned employees and, in fact, received by them. The Labour Court found no meri...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Abdul Jaheb Alias Kaloo Abdul Wahed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2136
J.N. Patel, J.1. The respondent was charged for having committed offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.D.P.S. Act') before the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No. 202 of 1990. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent, but ordered confiscation of the cash amount to the Government, seized from the respondent by his judgment and order dated 27-11-1992 which has been impugned by the State in this appeal against acquittal.2. The facts can briefly be stated as follows :Shri Onkar Mahadeo Panday Police Inspector attached to Police Station, Ramdaspeth, Akola, received an information on 19-8-1990 from his informer that the respondent Abdul Jahed alias Kaloo Abdul Wahid, resident of Akot (File) was selling Gard (brown sugar) at his residence. Therefore, he called two panchas and apprised them about the information and he along with Police Inspector A.G. Sheikh and Pol...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Asha D. Udas Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR160a
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Shri Naik for petitioner; Shri Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3; Shri Salunke for Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and Shri Pai for Respondent No. 9.2. What the petitioner challenges is the notice dated 8th February, 2000 (Ex. A page 38) issued by the third respondent convening a meeting of the members of the Managing Committee of Bindiya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., - Respondent No. 4 - for the purpose of considering the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner who is the Secretary of the fourth respondent society. Admittedly, the requisition has been submitted under Section 73ID of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the 1960 Act'). The said provision requires that requisition for convening a special meeting for considering the motion of No Confidence should be signed by not less than 1/3rd of the total number of members of the Committee who are entitled to vote at the election of the officer concern...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Estate of Late K.S. Engineer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)70TTJ(Mumbai)161
ORDERR.V. Easwar, J.M.In this appeal by the department, the following grounds have been taken:'(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that provisions of section 176(4) of the Income Tax Act are not applicable to the facts of the case and thereby erred in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 1,10,856 which was received as per clause 14(a) of the partnership deed by the legal heirs of the assessee on his retirement and subsequent death.(2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to take cognisance of the decision in the case of CIT v. Vishwanath Shastri's Estate : [1980]121ITR270(Mad) relied by the assessing officer in the assessment for invoking provisions of section 176(4) of the Income Tax Act, and treating the executors as recipient thereof within the meaning of section 176(4) and thereby erred in deleting the addition ma...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Sashikumar and 3 ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC662
1. Shri Sulthan Khan the Ld. Counsel submitted that Shri R.G. Merchant, who was to argue the cases is not well and therefore asked for a short adjournment. We find that the case was posted earlier on two occassions namely on 1.9.99 and 3.1.2000, when also the Ld. Counsel did not appear. We therefore proceed to decide these four applications on merits today.2. The facts of the case in brief are that from the Tool Box of Shri Sasikumar, an employee of Indian Airlines the Customs seized 20 gold bars bearing foreign markings valued at Rs. 10,02,760 at international prices. Sasikumar in his statement claimed that Shri Rawat and Shri Vichare, the other two applicants used to remove contraband gold from the aircraft. Such gold was kept in his custody until later removal.Shri S.K. Vichare in his statement named one Sharma who had entrusted the job of removal of gold to him at consideration of Rs. 500 per piece. This Sharma when traveling as passenger would secrete the gold in the aircraft. He...
Tag this Judgment!Somnath Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC658
1. These three appeals relate to a common issue and pertain to the same assessees. These are being taken up together for disposal. Appeal No.E/946 and 947-R/95-Bom are filed by the assessees M/s. Somnath Products. Appeal No. E/463-R/99-Bom is filed by the Revenue.2. Shri K.M. Mondal, learned Consultant appearing along with Shri D.H.Shah, learned Advocate, argued the case of the assessees. Shri K.L.Ramteke, learned JDR represented the Revenue.3. The assessees filed two classification lists effective 1.3.1993 and 1.4.1993 claiming classification under sub-heading 3906.90 for their product vika print NMA and also claiming benefit of Notification 14/92-CE at Sl. No. 5. Both the lists were duly approved by the Assistant Collector without any change. The products were cleared thereafter at the rate of duty @ 25% ad valorem. On 20.11.1992 samples of the products were drawn for testing. The chemical examiner in his test report opined as under: The sample is in the form of clear colourless liq...
Tag this Judgment!Parekh Plast Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT939Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants were clearing certain goods manufactured on job work basis in terms of price lists filed and approved where the prices were filed on cost construction price. Subsequently, the assessee manufactured goods on their own and supplied them on higher prices.They accordingly filed another price list which was also approved. In spite of the approval of higher prices, for sometime, the assessee continued to clear the goods on the basis of the earlier approved price. On a show cause notice being issued on 24-8-93, the assessee voluntarily remitted the duty. The Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the duty although the duty was earlier paid and also imposed penalties totally amounting to Rs. 5,200/-. The assessee then agitated the imposition of penalty before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) held that under the self-removal procedure, the responsibility was cast upon the assessee to show that the duty was paid correctly. The assessee having themselves filed the higher...
Tag this Judgment!Parda Auto Parts and 5 ors. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC647
1. These two sets of applications seek waiver and stay of penalties and also for early hearing of the appeals.2. In both the set of appeals, the facts are identical. Both sets of appeals are filed by the concerns and their partners who are engaged in dealing with used diesel engines. In the searches conducted in their premises, the Customs officers examined the documentation of acquisition of such diesel engines and came to the conclusion that whereas, in certain cases the legal and licit acquisition had been established, in other cases the concerns had failed to do so. In this belief, the engines were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine. In the lower proceedings and before us also the primary contention made is that these goods are not notified nor do they fall under the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.Therefore, the Customs are without jurisdiction in seizing and confiscating the goods. Both sides cited substantial case laws. The prayer made ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »