Mumbai Court May 2000 Judgments
Medley Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT368Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether, in computing assessable value of patent and proprietary medicaments, to give effect to Notification 245/83, the amount of excise duty, which is to be deducted, should include special excise duty also.2. We find that the matter has been decided by the decision of this Tribunal in M/s Ranbaxy Limited v. CCE -1999 (81) ECR 485. The Tribunal had held that the terms "excise duty" occurring in explanation I should include basic excise duty and special excise duty and that the special excise duty was also entitled to be deducted....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Multimetal Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT467Tri(Mum.)bai
1. During the hearing of this appeal of the Revenue on 5-10-1999 the Tribunal had reminded the departmental representative of their earlier directions to secure the case file and had made specific direction for production thereof on the next date of hearing. When the hearing resumed today Shri Deepak Kumar ld. SDR presented the case file bearing No. CIU/GEN/209/93/S/10-23/93.2. The respondents Multimeters Limited had imported certain consignment of mixed copper scrap. Examination of the cargo indicated that substantial portion thereof was not scrap but useful prime goods. The goods were re-examined by an expert panel. The concerned officers of customs placed a note on the file mentioned above from note sheet page XXI to XXVII for the Collector's perusal. On note sheet No. XXVII it was mentioned that the importers had waived show-cause notice and had requested for personal hearing. The Commissioner accordingly heard the importers on 23-12-1993. He held that three items namely strips in...
Tag this Judgment!Aleli and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT766Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal, the issue revolves around the determination of classification of 7 lots of fabrics which were claimed and declared to be classifiable under Heading 5512.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as it fetood during the relevant period i.e. 1986-1987. The officers of Central Excise had drawn samples and got them tested from the Dy. Chief Chemist and samples in this 7 lots as per the test reports were not only found to contain staple fibres, but also filament yarn (polyester) strands. All these test reports indicate that the percentage of polyester was not more than 70% by weight to exclude its classification from Chapter Heading 5512.00 2. The Addl. Collector in the impugned order has taken cognizance of the test reports relied upon in the show cause notice to establish misdeclaration and also from these test reports has concluded that the fabrics should be classified under Chapter Heading 508.00 since the test reports indicate the presence of manmade filament yarns of n...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jayashree Sunil Chavan Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom394; 2000(3)ALLMR465; 2000(3)BomCR803; 2000(3)MhLj605; (2002)1UPLBEC157
ORDERVijay Daga, J.1. A Division Bench at Mumbai having differed with the view expressed by similar Benches at Nagpur and other at Aurangabad, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has, in the circumstances, constituted the present Full Bench to resolve the difference.BACKGROUND FOR REFERENCE2. An occasion arose for the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Ashok Agarwal and Mrs. Justice Ranjana Desai to make this reference as the services of one Shri Rajendra Raut having B.Ed. qualification were terminated on the ground that he did not hold requisite qualification namely; D.Ed. for teaching in primary school. He was sought to be replaced by a person holding requisite qualification i.e. D.Ed. He had thus invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 2103 of 1998 to challenge the said action. While hearing the said petition for interim reliefs, relevant question raised for consideration was as to whether the qualification of B.Ed. can be said to be requisite qualific...
Tag this Judgment!Romila Jaidev Shroff Vs. Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom356; 2000(4)BomCR122; (2000)3BOMLR14; II(2000)DMC600; 2000(3)MhLj468
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. This reference is made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in respect of Notice of Motion No. 3254 of 1999 in Suit No. 5885 of 1999. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff/wife against the defendant/ husband seeking maintenance and expenses for herself and her children. The aforesaid Notice of Motion is for interim maintenance. The suit is filed in this Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction.2. An occasion arose for the learned Single Judge to make this Reference because on behalf of the defendant/husband, the plea of want of jurisdiction was taken. This plea was raised on the basis of section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. It is an admitted position that so far as the suit for maintenance is concerned, it is covered by the provisions of the said Act and, therefore, the Court, as contemplated by the said Act, will be the one to hear the same.3. Relying upon the Clause XII of the Letters Patent, according to theplaintiff, when the defendant i...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. C.R. Shingote
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR279; 2000(4)BomCR464; (2000)3BOMLR949; [2001(88)FLR375]; 2001(1)MhLj186
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. The present petition has arisen from an award dated 29th June 1993 given by the first Labour Court, Thane in reference IDA No. 105 of 1987 in adjudication between the petitioner Corporation and an individual worker employed by it as a driver.2. The petitioner is a statutory Corporation established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 to provide transport facilities to the public at large. The respondent was employed as a driver in Kalyan depot. He was in employment of the petitioner Corporation for a period of about 8 years. I must mention that the petition is badly drafted and does not disclose all the necessary details. The facts are that when the respondents was asked to explain certain events in respect of his bus, he immediately tendered his resignation on 17th February 1986. The said resignation was accepted on 26th February 1986. By his letter dated 1st April 1986, the respondent requested the petitioner Corporation that he had tendered his resi...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR304; 2000(4)BomCR468; [2000(86)FLR208]
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. A totally illegal, improper and perverse award given by the 4th Labour Court, Thane has given rise to this petition filed by the petitioner being Divisional Controller of the MSRTC. Raigad under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned award.2. I have carefully gone through the proceedings. The facts are as under:-The respondent workman was employed by the petitioner as a conductor for a period of 5 years. He was issued a charge sheet on 23rd October 1986 and was suspended pending the proposed domestic enquiry against him for the charge levelled against him. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the charges were serious as he had re-issued the tickets to the passengers which were already used and issued in the earlier trip. According to the petitioner, obviously, no conductor can indulge into such an act which amounts to dishonesty with the business of the Corporation and misappropriation of the funds and public money. It appea...
Tag this Judgment!State of Goa Vs. M/S. Heera Constructions
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom45; 2000(4)BomCR574
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Pursuant to the acceptance of the tender submitted by the respondents, the work order was issued by the petitioners on 21-3-1991 and the work was required to be completed on 29-5-1993. As certain disputes and differences arose between the parties, the Persona Designata by his order dated 13-2-1995 appointed Shri G.R. Karandikar as the sole arbitrator and the said arbitrator, after hearing the parties, gave his award on 30-9-1996. The petitioners filed their objections to the said award in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji, under sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter called 'the old Act', while depositing in the said Court the amount of Rs. 19,07,620/-, which was awarded by the arbitrator. The respondents were allowed to withdraw the said amount by giving Bank guarantee. However, by order dated 2-5-1998, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji referring to section 85 of Indian Arbitration and Conciliati...
Tag this Judgment!Sau. Jahnavi Arun Navare Vs. Principal, Thane Municipal Council, Law C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR801; 2000(4)BomCR728; (2000)3BOMLR175; 2000(4)MhLj375
ORDERDr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner was appointed as a part time lecturer in law in the 2nd respondent College in June 1989. The petitioner passed the L.L.B. degree examination in the IInd class and in May 1989 passed the L.L.M. examination with a percentage of 54.11. The appointment of the petitioner as a part time lecturer was approved by the University of Bombay (subsequently, Mumbai) from time to time during the period 1989 to 1999. A post of full time lecturer in the 2nd respondent fell vacant at the end of the academic year 1998-1999. After appearing for an interview before the Local Selection Committee constituted by the University of Mumbai under Statute 417 (iii), the petitioner came to be selected on a temporary basis to the full time post of lecturer in law in the 2nd respondent. By a letter dated 22-6-1999, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that h...
Tag this Judgment!Maria Alda Estrelina and Another Vs. Antonio Pinto and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR658; 2000(4)MhLj96
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. A suit for declaration that the suit land belongs to the estate of Santana Afonso and Maria Adelina Luiza Clara Marques Afonso was filed by Froilano Perpetua Socorro Marques Afonso on 14-6-1966. In this suit, mandatory injunction to remove plantation, fencing and construction done by the respondents in the suit land, was sought with directions to restore the suit land. An objection was raised by the respondents that the suit by Froilano Perpetua Socorro Marques Afonso was not competent. The said Froilano Afonso sought to implead legal heirs of Santana Afonso and his wife Maria Afonso in terms of Article 269 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, read with Articles 356 and 359 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, but the said application was rejected vide order dated 12-3-1970. The said Froilano Afonso thereafter filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure for impleading the said heirs which was granted and the said heirs were orde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »