Mumbai Court March 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.
Synbiotics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)LC867Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These four applications relate to four appeals arising out of the two orders made by the same adjudicating authority where the appellants are the same and the issue is also the same. These four applications are, therefore, being disposed of in this common order.2. These four applications were earlier disposed of vide order No.CII/2416/WZB/1998, dated 29-10-1998. In terms of the direction of the orders of the High Court of Gujarat, dated 9-12-1998 in Special Civil Application Nos. 10117,10412,10461 & 10492 of 1998, these applications were heard by us today for disposal. The applicants are manufacturers of bulk drugs. The process involves growth of certain micro-organisms.For this growth, the applicants prepare a food media or broth. The raw materials were several including tapioca, cottonseed flour, certain chemicals, corn oil etc. The allegation was made in several show cause notices that this media was excisable and dutiable goods classifiable under sub-heading 3821.00 as "pre...
Ashish Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT63Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for modification of the Tribunal's order, dated 2-9-1999.2. The advocate for the applicant says that subsequent to that order, the Tribunal in its decision in C.C.E., Aurangabad v. Ratan Tarpaulin Water Proof Industries in Appeal No. E/3035/93-D, has held that tarpaulin which are water proof, would be classifiable not under chapter 59, as it stood at the relevant time but under chapter 5206 or 5207. The advocate cites an order, dated March, 1993 of the Collector, Aurangabad in which he finds that the fabric manufactured by the appellant was water proof fabric, the coating upon which is not visible to the naked eye, but is visible in the sense that the fabric itself is visible. He says that the applicant only manufactured this type of goods in its factory and no other. In order words, the process it caused out amounts only to waterproofing by means of a layer not visible to the naked eye obtained by coating substance predominantly with wax and some other chemicals...
Shri Felix Menino Jesus Serrao Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR507
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 76/95 seeks directions to respondent No. 3 to act in pursuance of notices dated 24th February, 1994 and 16th February, 1995 to demolish the compound wall and the building illegally constructed by the respondent No. 4 In Writ Petition No. 237/99 the petitioner (who is respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 76/95) seeks quashing and setting aside of order dated 2-2-99 passed by respondent No. 3 thereinand for directions to respondent No. 2 to consider the regularisation of the petitioner's structures in Survey No. 54/4 and 51/2. The controversy in the two petitions centres around the same property and, as such, the petitions were taken up together. Learned Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No. 237/99 had requested on 27-9-99 to take up this petition alongwith W.P. No. 76/95 and, as such, arguments on merits in respect of both the petitions were heard. 2. In Writ Petition No. 76/95 the petitioner contends that the property of resp...
Lalchand Cheddilal Yadav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR585; 2000BomCR(Cri)585; (2000)3BOMLR650; 2000(3)MhLj438
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31-1-1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 1242 of 1992 convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us.2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under :-On 26-8-1992 at about 7 p.m., Rajendra Sahani P.W. 8 along with one Murli was standing on a platform near Shivshakti sugar-cane Vakhar, Carter Road-9, Borivali (East) Bombay. He heard the appellant who was working in the sugarcane vakhar of one Babulal situated adjacent to Khandwani building asking Shamlal who was a co-worker in the said vakhar to bring a diary. Thereafter, Rajendra Sahani, Murli, Shamlal and the appellant stood on the said platform. After sometime, Murli went towards Sukharwadi to answer the call of nature and Rajendra Sahani P.W. 8 for urinating. Just before he had left for urinating, he heard an excha...
Smt. Gurmeet Kaur Vs. Shri B.S. Mohite, Commissioner of Police and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR870; 2000(3)MhLj522
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who styles herself as the mother of the detenu, Satnamsingh Ajamersingh Gundu, has impugned the Detention Order dated 26th May 1999 passed by the 1st respondent-Mr. B.S. Mohite, Commissioner of Police, Thane, detaining the detenu under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Mah. Act No. LV of 1981).Copies of the Detention Order and the grounds of detention which are also dated 26th May 1999, are annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively, to this petition and were served on detenu on 27th May 1999.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Since, in our view, this writ petition can be allowed on a solitary ground, namely, that pleaded asground 7(b), we are neither adverting to the other grounds of challenge raised in the petition nor to the prejudicial...
Shireen Dubash (Ms.) Vs. Air India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ108Bom
1. The petitioner joined the 1st respondent Air India Ltd. as Air Hostess on October 1, 1975 and she was confirmed on October 1, 1976 after successful completion of her probationary period. The petitioner is at present holding the post of Senior Check Air Hostess. On August 20/21, 1997 the petitioner was on the flight assignment on Flight No. A1 825/824, Bombay-Riyadh-Bombay. After the petitioner cleared custom check, the security personnel checked the petitioner and allegedly recovered from her some coco cola cans, a mineral water bottle, toilet tissue rolls and some magazines. According to the petitioner she was falsely implicated by the security personnel of the 1st respondent and during the search her cash of US $ 985 and cheque for Rs. 6,434.33 was found missing. She requested the security personnel to allow her to return to the aircraft and search for the missing envelope containing cash and the cheque. The security personnel refused to pay any heed to her complaint regarding sto...
Mahendrakumar S/O Ramrao Gaikwad Vs. Gulabbai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2111
ORDERB.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Shri R.N. Borulkar for the petitioner and learned Advocate Shri Darak for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. The petitioner herein lingres, under a false hope, in the corridors of the High Court, that he would be absolved from the liability imposed by the Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, in the matter of payment of monthly allowance to his real mother, by way of maintenance.3. The petitioner is the eldest son of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The daughter of the respondents is already married. Krishna kurnar, another son of the respondents, is married and has got a job in Bajaj Auto Ltd., Aurangabad. Jagdishkumar, youngest son of the respondents, was taking education when petition for grant of maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondents.4. Respondent No. 1 (original petitioner No. 1) is an old lady. Respondent No. 2 (Original petitioner No. 2) is aged pensioner. Respondent No. 2 gets meagre pension. The respondents have no so...
Vante Bicrem Gaunso Vs. Administrative Tribunal, Panaji-goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2000
Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj145
R.K. Batta, J. 1. A suit for eviction was filed by respondent No. 3 against the appellant on 2nd March, 1982 on the ground of change of user, material alteration and personal occupation. On 25th September, 1985, respondent No. 3 had filed an application under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act'), for eviction of respondent No. 3 on account of non-deposit of rent during the pendency of the proceedings. Subsequent to thisapplication, respondent No. 3 was directed to quantify the exact amount in default and, as such application dated 2nd May, 1986, was filed wherein respondent No. 3 quantified the amount in default from December, 1981, till the date of filing of the said application. This application was disposed of by the Additional Rent Controller vide Order dated 7th January, 1987, whereby the . proceedings were stopped and the appellant was directed to put the landlord in possession of ...
Viral Filaments Limited Vs. Indusind Bank Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR737; [2003]113CompCas85(Bom)
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. Appeal admitted. Respondent waives service through their Counsel. By consent. Appeal called out and heard.2. This Appeal under the Letters Patent impugns an order of the learned Company Judge dated November 23, 2000 by which the Respondent's petition for winding up the Company has been admitted.3. The facts are that the Respondent is a Bank which had lent large sums of money of Rs. 5,17,46,623.96 to the Appellant Company. It issued a statutory notice for repayment of the aforesaid amount on 8th March, 2000. Since the Company did not pay or secure the large amount due and payable, a petition for winding up of the Company was presented under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. After the Petition was accepted and notice was issued to the Company, the Company appeared and opposed the petition by an affidavit in reply. The only point urged in the affidavit in reply dated 8th October, 2000 is that it was not commercially insolvent, that it engaged a large n...
Shri Vante Bicrem Gaunso Vs. the Administrative Tribunal, Goa and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR540; 2000(3)BomCR342
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. A suit for eviction was filed by respondent No. 3 against the appellant on 2nd March, 1982 on the ground of change of user, material, alteration and personal occupation. On 25th September, 1985, respondent No. 3 had filed an application under section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), for eviction of respondent No. 3 on account of non-deposit of rent during the pendency of the proceedings. Subsequent to this application, respondent No. 3 was directed to quantify the exact amount in default and, as such application dated 2nd May, 1986, was filed wherein respondent No. 3 quantified the amount in default from December, 1981, till the date of filing of the said application. This application was disposed of by the Additional Rent Controller vide Order dated 7th January, 1987, whereby the proceedings were stopped and the appellant was directed to put the landlord in possessi...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »