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.
Saifan Rahimansaheb Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: II(2000)DMC584
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The appellant (the accused) was tried for offences punish able under Section 498-A and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions's Case No. 72 of 1991, in the Court of Sessions, Solapur.2. By his judgment and order dated 18th January, 1992, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A and Section 306 of the I.P.C. The accused was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 498-A. In default of payment of fine he was to suffer R.I. for six months. For the offence punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was to suffer R.I. for six months. It is the said judgment and order which is impugned in the present appeal.3. The basic allegation of the prosecution is that because deceased Shehnaz, wife of the accused could not bear a chi...
Herbertsons Ltd. Vs. Kishore Rajaram Chhabria and ors. and Shaw Wallag ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR269a
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out by two Companies seeking to join as party defendants in a suit which is filed by the plaintiff Company against one K.R. Chhabria and 10 others. Mr. Kadam has appeared for the applicants in support of this chamber summons. Mr. Seervai has appeared for the plaintiff Company which opposes this prayer. Mr. Madon has appeared for defendants No. 1 to 4, 6 and 11 and Mr. Thakkar has appeared for defendants No. 7 to 10. Nobody has appeared for defendant No. 5 one Mr. Ganguli though served.2. This chamber summons is supported by the affidavit in support of the Company Secretary of intervenor No. 1 i.e. Shaw Wallace and Co.3. Before I deal with the averments in the affidavit in support as also the submissions of Mr. Kadam, it is desirable to refer to the suit in a nutshell. This suit filed by the plaintiff- Herbertsons Ltd. seeks principally two fold relief. The first relief is a declaration that the notice dated 2nd December, 1999 convening...
Farooq Desai Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT641Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals are against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2 lakh on each of the appellant Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The appellants are absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have read the memoranda of appeals and heard the departmental representative.3. The Customs officers seized a car, which contained 9 silver ingots weighing about 290 kgs and other goods, parked in the compound of a housing society. Following investigations into the seizure notices were issued to various persons including the two appellants before me, proposing penalty on them. In his order the Collector has found these two appellants to be involved in the smuggling and imposed penalty on them.4. The Collector relies upon the following features in coming to his conclusion about the involvement of these two persons, who are brothers, in the smuggling of silver. Flat 403 in Nyaya Deep building is owned by Amin Desai, who is the brother of these two appellants. The information received by the...
Dekka Chem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT935Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether chloracetamidoxime, a drug intermediate, is of the same class as chlordiazepoxide. The question arises because the appellant had claimed refund under Rule 173L of the duty paid on the former, which was used after its clearance of payment of duty and return by the buyer to make the latter. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has held that the two are not of the same class and allowed the department's appeal, overruling the order of the Asstt. Collector sanctioning refund.2. The provision for payment of refund vinder Rule 173L is contained in Sub-ule (iii) of clause (3). This provided that no refund shall be admissible on the goods which are disposed of in any manner other than for production of goods of the same class. The representative of the appellant contends that drug is manufactured by further processing the drug intermediate and they are therefore not of the same class. He cites the decision of ...
Elektronik Lab and 4 ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC330
1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty totaling Rs. 6,87,106 demanded from Sanghvi Reconditioner Pvt. Ltd. under Section 112 of the Act, Rs. 17 lakhs on this applicant, Rs. 10 lakhs on Kiran Sanghvi, its Managing Director, Rs. 2.50 lakhs on K.D. Motta, its Manager; penalties under Section 112 of Rs. 10 lakhs each on Electrical Lab and Mehta Earth Movers.2. We have heard Mr. J.C. Patel, Advocate for the first three applicants, Mr. K.M. Mondal, Consultant for the fourth applicant, Mr.V.S. Nankani for the fifth applicant and the departmental representative.3. The brief facts leading to the demand for duty and imposition of penalty are as follows. M/s. Sanghvi Reconditions Pvt. Ltd. (Sanghvi for the short) imported various consignments and claimed the benefit of Notification 211/83. This notification exempts from duty capital goods raw materials components etc. imported by a ship repairing unit registered with the Directorate General of Shipping for repairs of ocean going v...
Felix Dores Fernandes Vs. Commr. of Cus., Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT639Tri(Mum.)bai
The appellant on departure to Dubai was specifically asked whether he had any foreign currency. He answered in the negative. Search of his baggage resulted in recovery of foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 10,06,615/-. This currency was seized along with one piece of paper with some noting and pocket diary. In his statement recorded on the same day the appellant claimed that he had sold a flat in Mumbai for Rs. 72 lakhs, that he had received compensation from a church of about Rs. 18.6 lakhs, that he had utilised part of such funds for purchase of assorted foreign exchange from one Mr. Raju whose name and telephone number were in the telephone diary and that he was carrying the said foreign exchange. Raju was not traced. Show cause notice was issued for confiscation of the currency and for imposition of penalty. In the reply to the show cause notice his statement was denied. It was stated that the appellant earned substantial amounts by way of retirement benefit and by way of commerci...
Luner Plastic and Engg. Corpn. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(93)LC684Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals one by the assessee and other in the form of application under (Section) 35E(2) of the Act by the Collector are against the order of the Collector. By this order the Collector has held that the assessee manufactured various articles, classification of which has been done by him and has held the goods liable to duty invoking the extended period under proviso to Section 11A of the Act and imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/- under (Rule) 173Q. He has held that the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of notification 175/86 the value for this purpose being computed by adding together the value of the goods cleared in the factory on Mumbai, the subject matter of the adjudication, and its other factory at Surat and left the quantification of duty to be determined by the assessment Collector.2. The assessee is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have heard the departmental representative and read the relevant papers.3. The department's application questions the ...
Sow. Vijayatai Subhash Gavhane and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR196; 2000(2)MhLj459
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Sillod Panchayat Samiti and remaining petitioners are the members of the said Samiti. A motion of no confidence was moved by respondent Nos. 5 to 16 against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the Collector at Aurangabad, acting on the same motion, as submitted under section 72(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (the Act for short) issued a notice under sub-section (3) of the said section on 14th December, 1999 and a meeting was scheduled on 7th January, 2000. The meeting was held, as scheduled, and the motion was carried and passed with 12 to 9 votes. The Panchayat Samiti has in all 22 members. One Shri Mane Shankar Rama remained absent and remaining 21 members were present.2. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings of the said meeting and contended that the motion of no confidence had lapsed and the resolution of no confidence was passed illegally and in brea...
M/S. Graphic Interiors Vs. the Commander Works Engineer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom303; 2000(3)ALLMR18; 2000(4)BomCR237; (2000)2BOMLR58
ORDERVijay Daga, J.1. The petition is directed against the award dated 17-8-1996 passed by the Sole Arbitrator awarding the claim in favour of the Commander Works Engineer (Naval Works), Dr. Homi Bhaba Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 on behalf of Union of India.2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners against the said award, few relevant introductory facts need to be noticed at the outset.3. The petitioners, pursuant to the tender invitation had submitted their tender bid for the works for providing the furniture for Office, Library, Lecture hall-cum-auditorium for Building No. 3-6 at Karanja. The bid submitted by the petitioners came to be accepted. In pursuance thereof the work order came to be issued in November 1988 and formal contract came to be executed between the parties in due course.4. The petitioners have stated that after getting the work order, they mobilised their resources for the work and commenced the execution thereof promptly and diligently. However, t...
Union of India Vs. M/S. India Proofing and General Industries, Kanpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom292; 2000(3)ALLMR23; 2000(4)BomCR234; (2000)2BOMLR77
ORDERVijay Daga, J.1. This is a petition directed against the award dated 8th June 1999 delivered by the sole arbitrator Smt. Shail Goel, Additional Legal Adviser to the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi who was appointed as a sole arbitrator vide letter dated 19th February 1997 by the Director General of Supplies and Disposal, New Delhi under the terms and conditions of the contract bearing No. BTX-3/ 137/G/0737(91)/COAD/868 dated 28th December 1992 to resolve the disputes between the parties. 2. The facts of this case, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner, Union of India, through the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, Directorate of Supplies (Textiles) having its offices at New Delhi and Mumbai had placed the above contract on the respondent forsupply of Shorts Men's Drill Khaki-1977 pattern in assorted sizes aggregating to 2,79, 795 pairs as per tender specifications with delivery period upto 31st August 1993. Though the goods ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »