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.
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Electro Pneumatics and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT594Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal filed by the department is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), confirming the claim of the assessee that hydraulic press, pipes, tube, bending machines, special purpose machines for working metal and honing machines, all computer numerically controlled are CNC machines tools and has been exempted under Notification 253/88.2. After hearing the departmental representative we find no merits whatsoever in the department's appeal. The only ground in the appeal is that the goods are more appropriately classifiable as machines and not machine tools. Machine tools are necessarily machines. Machine tools are defined in the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, third edition, as "stationary power driven machine for shaping, cutting, turning, boring, drilling, grinding or polishing of solid parts especially metal". The appeal does not question that the goods are machines tools since they are classifiable either under Heading 8460.00 or 8462.00, whic...
indabrator Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT649Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After waiving deposit of the penalty, we take up the appeal with the consent of both sides.2. Penalty has been imposed on the appellant for the reason that it changed the classification, from Heading 84.24 already approved, of the shot blasting machine manufactured by appellant under Heading 84.60.The Asst. Commissioner whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has imposed penalty on his finding that the attempt to change the classification of the machine was made so that its purchaser could avail of the Modvat credit of the duty paid on them. Credit is available of the duty paid on goods classifiable under Heading 84.60 but not those classified under 84.24.3. The advocate for the appellant does not wish to press the claim for classification under 84.60, which is made in the appeal, but disputes the penalty. He says there is no provision in the Act or Rules for seeking to change the classification. The departmental representative emphasizes that there is no chang...
Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and anr. Vs. Ranjeet Bhimsing Patil and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2000
Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj165
R.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Matter is taken up with the consent of the respective parties, for final hearing.2. Heard Shri B.R. Warma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. S/Shri G.V. Wani with V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent No. 1; Shri P. R. Katneshwarkar, for respondent No. 2 and R.N. Dhorde, Advocate for respondent No. 3, present and heard. The respondent No. 4 is absent, though served. The name of the petitioner No. 2 is deleted as per the leave dated 8-2-2000.3. The petitioner No. 1, a registered Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, is the Union of workers working in the respondent No. 4 Pratap Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited, Amalner. The elections to the Office bearers of the Trade Union were held sometime in December, 1998. The respondent No. 3 was appointed as Election Officer so as to conduct the elections. Necessary elections were completed and twenty eight members are said to have been elected for the various posts...
Finolex Industries Ltd. Vs. Mr. Anil Ramchand Chhabria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR644; (2000)2BOMLR336; [2008]144CompCas738(Bom); 2000(4)MhLj81
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.Since the order impugned in both these appeals viz. Company Appeal Lodg. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1999 is common they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.1. The appellants are Public Limited Companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Shares of the appellants are listed on the various Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange. One Mr. Ramchand Parsaram Chhabria was a shareholder of the Appellant Companies. He died intestate at Pune on 11th August, 1987 (hereinafter for brevity sake referred to as 'the deceased') leaving 'behind him his mother (i) Smt. Parvatibai Parsaram Chhabria, his widow (ii) Smt. Leela Ramchand Chhabria, his son (iii) Shri Anil R. Chhabria, the respondent herein, and his Daughter (iv) Smt. Rita Prakash Makhija, as his heirs and legal representatives. Thus the legal heirs are entitled to 25% share each of the estate of the deceased.2. On 22-9-1987 the respondent made a written request to the Appellant Company for t...
Dr. Shardul S/O Shashikant Dongaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR501; 2000(4)BomCR52; 2000(2)MhLj431
ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. Shri, Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the petitioner in this petition is challenging the action of the Dean, Government Medical College, Nagpur, in granting registration to respondent No. 4 Dr. Lavhe against the OBC seat for M.D. (Medicine) in Government Medical College vide order dated 5-2-1999. It is contended that respondent - Dean issued an advertisement inviting applications from registered medical graduates who passed their MBBS examination from recognised medical colleges for registration to Post Graduate courses starting from January 1999. The petitioner applied under the OBC category for registration in the prescribed form giving his preference of subjects (a) MD (Medicine), (b) MD (Chest), (c) MD (Anaesthesia). The respondent - Dean published a merit list for all the faculties. The petitioner was at Sr. No. 11 in order of merit in general ca...
Ganesh Ramachandra Naik Vs. Sitaram Bhoir and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom294; 2000(3)ALLMR189; 2000(4)BomCR250; (2000)2BOMLR86; 2001(2)MhLj735
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. This order shall dispose of the chamber summons taken out by respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12 in the Election petition for deletion of their names from the election petition.2. Dr. Chandrachud, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the said respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12 submits that the said respondents are not necessary parties in the election petition. According to the learned. Additional Solicitor General, section 82 of Representation of Peoples Act makes the provision about the parties to the election petition and he submits that the respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12 do not fall in that category. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Jyoti Basil and others v. Debi Ghosal and others, : [1982]3SCR318 and B. Sundara Rami Reddy v. Election Commission of India and others .3. The chamber summons is opposed by the learned Counsel for the election petitioner and he submits that in view of the averments made in paragra...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Rustom Franroze Hakim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)345; 2000CriLJ3401; [2000(85)FLR625]; (2000)ILLJ1123Bom
Marlapalle, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned single Judge, in Special Case No. 37/82,'wherein, the accused was charged with an offence punishable under Section 161 of the I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short).2. The prosecution case unfolds thus:-The accused Dr. Rustom Franroze Hakim, was a registered medical practitioner with his dispensary at Lemington Road, Bombay - 7 and he was a panel doctor under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme (E.S.I. Scheme for short). He was an insurance medical officer as defined under Rule 2(n) of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950. The complainant Shashikant was an insured person covered under the E.S.I. Scheme and he had registered his card with the accused. The complainant was entitled to free medical treatment and for the reimbursement of medical benefits. It was alleged that o...
Sk. Usman and Sk. Raheman Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3301
J.N. Patel, J.1. In Sessions Trial No. 135/1993 the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal convicted the appellant accused by his judgment and order dated 28th April 1994 for having committed offence under Section 498-A of IPC and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. He was also convicted for having committed offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and for having committed offence under Section 201 of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that the substantive sentences to run concurrently and the appellant would also be entitled to set off for the period for which he is in jail subject to the pr...
Ganesh Lingam Tevar Rajan and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1611; (2000)102BOMLR911
Vishnu Sahai, J.(1) Through this Appeal the Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated June, 26, 1996 passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 47 of 1991 convicting and sentencing each of them in the manner stated hereinafter:(a) Under Section 21 read with Section 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default to suffer 6 months R.I.: and(b) Under Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, (but awarding no separate sentence).2. In short the prosecution case runs as under:On 13.12.1990 the informant Police Inspector Kashinath Kachare P.W. 1 was posted at Narcotic Cell, C.B.C.I.D., Bombay. At about 8.20 a.m. while he was on duty one of the informers came and informed him that some persons were going to indulge in narcotic activities in Matunga Mansion. Bhandarkar Road, Matunga, Mumbai 19. He also informed that they were wearing turbans and were in the age group of 25 to 26 years and were short in height P. 1....
Eureka Forbes Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)(92)LC349Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Eureka Forbes, the appellant before us, markets a product known as "Aquaguard". The product consists of two components. The first component consists of what is described as water filter purifier. It comprises of a chamber containing particles of activated carbon; another chamber housing an ultraviolet lamp and a third chamber which contains electronic controls and a spout for releasing water. The water is first passed through the chamber containing the carbon where it is filtered to remove solid waste to deodorise it and to remove unwanted colours. It is then taken to the chamber containing ultraviolet lamp radiation and the lamp destroys microscopic bacteria and viruses present. The water is then ready for removal.2. This unit is manufactured at Hyderabad and in Uttar Pradesh by the wholly owned subsidiary of the appellant M/s. AP Industrial Company Ltd. (APIC for short). APIC sends the unit to the appellant's warehouse. The appellant thereafter packs this article and second ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »