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.
Dr. Shilpa Suresh Shinde and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR242; (2000)2BOMLR80; 2000(3)MhLj529
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 waive service through Counsel. Interveners waive service through Mr. Vashi. By consent, rule called out for immediate hearing and heard.2. The short point which arises for determination in this writ petition is; 'If for some fortuitous reason the quota of 25% of the seats which ought to be reserved for the candidates passing the All India Entrance Examination isunfilled, is the State entitled to reserve any of those seats, by applying its reservation policy thereto?'3. The Counsel are agreed that, as a result of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, : (1984)IILLJ481SC , the mode of selection of candidates for the Post Graduate Medical Courses, is as under :---A. 25% of the total number of available seats are carved out into a separate category and have to be filled up only by admitting students who have passed the All India Entrance Examination (All India Quota). B. Of the balance 75% ...
Shri Jayawant Yeshwant Walawalkar Vs. Shri V.P. Shanmugam and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1419; 2000(4)ALLMR500; 2000(4)BomCR654
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. The appellant had filed an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and claimed a total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen lacs only) on account of injuries suffered by him ina motor accident which took place on 17-2-1992. The learned member of theMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigad at Alibag by his order dated 11-6-1996 dismissed the appellant's claim. Hence this appeal. 2. At the relevant time the appellant was working as a security officer inprivate company at Patalganga Dist. Raigad. On the day of occurrence i.e. on17-2-1992 at about 12.30 a.m. he along with two officers of the factory wasproceeding towards factory at Patalganga in a jeep bearing No. RLL 5525.The appellant was himself driving the jeep. When the jeep came on the bridgeof Kalundra river, a truck bearing No. MYD 9502 belonging to respondentNo. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2 was seen coming from the oppositeside with front lights switched on fully. According t...
Sunil S/O Sadashiv Ghate Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR827; 2000BomCR(Cri)827; 2000CriLJ3709; 2000(4)MhLj386
ORDERJ.N. Patel, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.These two writ petitions came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur. As there was divergence of opinions between different Benches of the Court on the point in issue, an order of reference dated 21st December, 1999, came to be passed and this is how the matter has been placed before us for consideration.2. The order of reference dated 21st December, 1999, is as under :1. We have heard the two petitions at length. 2. A common ground challenging the impugned orders of detention is taken by the petitioner in these two petitions, which according to the petitioners, is sufficient to vitiate the orders, the ground being that Detaining Authority having failed to communicate to the detenu at the time of the service of the impugned order of detention that until the approval of the impugned order of detention by the State Government under section 3(3) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities ofSlu...
Dr. Shilpa Suresh Shinde and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR9; (2000)102BOMLR80
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 waive service through Counsel. Interveners waive service through Mr. Vashi. By consent, rule called out for immediate hearing and heard.2. The short point which arises for determination in this writ petition is : 'If for some fortuitous reason the quota of 25% of the seats which ought to be reserved for the candidates passing the All India Entrance Examination is unfilled, is the State entitled to reserve any of those seats by applying its reservation policy thereto?'3. The Counsel are agreed that, as a result of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Jain v. Union of India : (1984)IILLJ481SC the mode of selection of candidates for the Post Graduate Medical Courses, is as under:-A. 25% of the total number of available seats are carved out into a separate category and have to be filled up only by admitting students who have passed the All India Entrance Examination (All India Quota).B. Of the balance 75% of the s...
Cc Vs. Shree Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(93)LC544Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We have heard the departmental representative on the appeal filed by the department. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.2. The ground in the appeal that the Collector's order is contradictory, in that it offers redemption of goods ordered to be absolutely confiscated, has to be accepted. This is what the Collector has said in the operative portion of the order. Since he has fixed specific amount for redemption for the goods, which are confiscated, he intended this option to be given and the words "absolute confiscation" appearing in the operative portion appear to be an error. We therefore direct that his order be treated as one of giving an option to redeem the goods, which he had already confiscated.3. The departmental representative did not press the ground on valuation. Therefore we do not deal with it.4. It is not possible to accept the ground in the appeal since it has been established that the importer was non-existent, an option to redeem the goods on...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Roto Inks (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT597Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in this appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the failure by the assessee to include the correct classification in the Modvat declaration of the inputs did not disqualify it from taking credit.2. I have heard the Departmental Representative. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. I do not question the averments in the department's appeal that the inputs must be specifically mentioned in the declaration under Rule 57G. However, the two notices to show cause which were issued to assessee do not propose this. The show cause notices are themselves in a standard stereo typed form. The Annexure-A to each of these notices, which alleges specific charges, indicates that the classification of the inputs, which were shown in the 57G declaration, is different from the declaration in the gate passes. From this it will be clear that the input themselves had been declared in the 57G declaration. The question then is not the one of failure to ...
Parda Auto Parts Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT548Tri(Mum.)bai
1. 154 old and used diesel Engines of foreign origin were seized from the premises of M/s. Parda Auto Parts (hereinafter termed as M/s. PAP) under the belief that they were smuggled. At the time of the panchanama and subsequently also certain purchase bills were produced in the claim that these were lawfully purchased against payment by cheques. The Customs authorities subjected these to detailed examination. It was observed that the vouchers were devoid of details such as serial numbers of the engines etc. It was claimed that 100 Engines were kept with M/s. PAP by M/s Parda Motors (hereinafter termed as M/s. PM). The officers observed that there was no document witnessing the transfer of such engines from M/s. Parda Motors to M/s. Parda Auto Parts. The Customs observed that one of the seller M/s. Jain Impex were fictitious and non existent. It was further found that 15 Engines sold by M/s.Jamalchand & Sons were not imported engines. On the strength of these investigations the sho...
United Pestichem and Nonionics Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1171Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal itself is taken up for disposal after waiving deposit as the issue for consideration is settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court and numerous decisions of the Tribunal.2. The appellant is a job worker manufacturing chemicals out of raw materials supplied by persons to whom he returns the finished goods.The question for consideration in this appeal is whether in determining the assessable value of these goods, the profit that the supplier of the raw material (i.e., recipient of the finished goods) earns on selling the finished products is to be included in the assessable value. Both the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) have held it is to be so and included.3. Both these authorities clearly agree that the profits of the job worker, that would have earned on his manufacturing activity, is already included in the price for the job work which he charge to the supplier of the raw material. It is now settled by the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints v. U.O....
income-tax Officer Vs. Fashion Sports (i) (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)78ITD41(Mum.)
1. The only question in this appeal by the department is whether the CIT(A) is right in excluding the insurance claim of Rs. 11,97,400 from the 'total turnover' while computing the deduction under section 80HHC.2. The Assessing Officer while computing the deduction noticed that the assessee had received the aforesaid sum from the United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. on account of loss of goods in fire which occurred in the factory of its sister-concern to which the assessee had sent the goods for labour job. He added the amount to the "total turnover" for the purposes of section 80HHC, while applying the formula : Export turnoverProfits & Gains of business X --------------------- Total turnover The result was that the denominator in the formula got enhanced and the deduction got reduced.3. The CIT(A) held that though the amount was includible in the income of the company, it will not go into the 'total turnover'. He directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the deduction accordingly...
Plastchem Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT775Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. MSA Exports (MSA for short), New Delhi, one of the two appellants before us, exported in November 1992 two consignments of plastic bags, in fulfillment of an obligation in the advance licence, grant of which an application had already been made. The advance licence was granted in December of that year. The appellant, in February next year transferred the licence to Plast Chem Industries Bombay, other appellant before us. This latter appellant imported three consignments of high density polyethylene. In the bill of entry filed for the clearance of the goods, the appellant claimed the benefit of the notification 203/92 and the benefit was also granted for fulfillment of any of the condition asked for and submitted before clearance. The goods were assessed finally before clearance.2. On 3-9-1997 common notice was issued to both the appellants before us by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva. The notice alleged that Modvat credit had been taken of the duty paid on the inputs ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »