Mumbai Court July 2000 Judgments
Shankar Budhaji Moundekar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)135; 2001BomCR(Cri)282; 2001(1)MhLj135
S. G. Mahajan, J. 1. Appellants No. 1 Shankar s/o Budhaji Moundekar, No. 2 Raju s/o Shankar Moundekar, No. 3 Ramrao s/o Kashinath Moundekar and No. 4 Prabhakar s/o Kashinath Moundekar have preferred the instant appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, on 12.1.1996 in Sessions Trial No. 260 of 1989. The offences with which the appellants were charged and convicted are under section 307 read with section 149, section 147 and section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer R. I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, or in default to suffer R. I. for three months more for the offence under section 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, or in default to suffer R.I. for one month more for the offence under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and again to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Krishna Kanitkar Vs. the Bhiwandi Nizampura Municipal Council ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR251; (2000)3BOMLR573
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Respondents waive service. By consent, petition is taken up for hearing.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is seeking appropriate directions to the first and second respondents to demolish the building consisting of ground and six upper floors constructed by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 on the land bearing City Survey No. 3831 and House Property No. 358 and 358/1 at Kasar Alley, Bhiwandi, District Thane. The petitioner is also seeking a direction to the first and second respondents to furnish the certified copies of extracts of assessment register/ book and permission dated 5th May, 1995 granted to respondents Nos. 4 to 6 in respect of the aforesaid property.3. The petitioner is an Advocate practising in the Courts at Bhiwandi as well as District Court at Thane for the last 15 years. He says that he is also associated with various social activities and is presently acting as the chief trustee...
Tag this Judgment!Rohan Prabhakar Rao Vs. Medical Council of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom429; 2001(1)BomCR194; (2000)3BOMLR659; 2001(1)MhLj275
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioner is a medical student currently engaged in the 2nd year M.B.B.S. Course of the 2nd respondent, Maharashtra University of Health Science ('the Health University' for short) in a college affiliated to it being the Mahatma Gandhi Mission's College Navi Mumbai, the 3rd respondent herein. The petitioner is seeking transfer to the Grant Medical College, Byculla, Mumbai, the 4th respondent herein.2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the refusal of respondent No. 2 Health University to grant permission for the petitioner's intra university transfer from one college to another.3. The petition discloses the following facts. The petitioner was admitted to the 3rd respondent College in 1998. He passed his First Year M.B.B.S. Examination on 15th August, 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that he suffers from severe anxiety and depression. In the past, he has displayed suicidal tendencies. The petitioner's perm...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kantilal Chhotalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: [2000]246ITR439(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is : whether reassortment charges were includible in business profits while calculating export profits as per the formula : Business profits X Export turnover/Total turnover.2. The facts of this appeal are as follows :3. We are concerned with the assessment year 1989-90. During the said year, the assessee received reassortment charges. According to the trade practice, whenever a foreign buyer approached the assessee who was not able to supply the diamonds, the assessee approached other diamond traders. The said traders would, thereafter, send the goods to the foreign buyer on approval basis. If the foreign buyer approves the goods, the sale, would take place directly between the trader and the foreign buyer for which the assessee got one per cent. commission named as reassortment charges. In substance, the said reassortment charges constitute commit sion received by the assessee from the local parties in I...
Tag this Judgment!Salim Mohamed Babul Miniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ58
Dr. (Mrs.) Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application is filed by the petitioner/original accused, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19th September, 1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1989. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/original accused-Salim Mohammed Babul and maintained the conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Railways), Manmad, by his Judgment and order dated 1st July, 1985. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Railways), Manmad, had convicted accused No. 1 - Salim for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railways Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, R.I. for 6 months. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Railways), however, acquitted accused No. 2 - Bipin...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Textile Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT507Tri(Mum.)bai
The appeal is filed by the above partnership from against the above captioned Impugned order dated 19.02.1992 by Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad for quashing and setting aside the same with consequential benefit and any other deemed relief.1. The brief facts of the case are that appellant manufactures item falling under chapter headings 84.51, 84.20, 84.43 of Tariff Act under Central Excise Licence Declaration of inputs to be brought by them under Modvat scheme was filed on 05.05.1986, which was approved by Assistant Collector, Divn. III on 28.08.1986, from the date of filing declaration. Revised declaration was filed in 22.01.1988 giving detail description of inputs by the appellant. While assessing RT12 returns and checking of documents, such as original PLA, GPS, RG23A Part I and Part II, and RT12 returns by the range Superintendent it was noticed that appellant had taken credits of duty on inputs of Rs. 75,031.50 not declared by them under Modvat such as Reduction Gear/Spar...
Tag this Judgment!Ama Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT238Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The first two questions for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility for the exemption under Notification 175/86 of benzidine dihydrochloride manufactured by the appellant. The benefit has been denied on the ground that this product was not specified in the certificate of registration as small scale industrial unit issued to the appellant by the appropriate authority. That this product was not included in the certificate was not denied. The advocate for the applicant however contends that there is no such requirement for it. He cites the decision of the Tribunal in and circular of the Board dated 24.12.1993, reproduced in 1994 (69) E.L.T. T7.2. In the light of the decision, and the circular of the Board and taking into account that there is no condition in the notification that the benefit of notification is only available for the product or products specified in the certificate issued by this appropriate authority, this point has to be decided in favour of the appellant. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Kishore Vrajlal Vithalani Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT250Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Custom officers seized from the premises of the appellant in Mumbai various electronic goods consisting of integrated circuits, switches and transistors and connectors on the belief that they were smuggled. Notice was issued proposing confiscation and imposition of penalty on Kishore V. Vithalani and Afzal Ismail Lakadawala who are partners of the firm M/s. Component Supplies. The Additional Collector of Customs, after considering the cause shown, and hearing the appellant, has ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed penalties on the appellants of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 112(b)(i) of the Act.The appeal against this order having been dismissed by the Collector (Appeals), the appellants are before us.2. It is the contention of the common advocate for both the appellants that there is no material whatsoever to conclude that the goods are smuggled. The goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Act and the burden of proving that they are smuggled, which would fall on...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Swan Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT818Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When this application for early hearing was argued, Shri A.V.Phadnis ld. Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the appeal itself was not maintainable. We have examined the grounds advanced by him. The authorization refers to the order-in-appeal dated 31-8-1999 and says that this order deals with the appeal filed by the department against order-in-original No. FI-367/98, dated 14-9-1998. The statement of facts however, refers to an order-in-original No. FI/392/98, dated 30-10-1996. The Form E.A.3 refers to the amount of refund as Rs. 54,66,422.00 + Rs. 1,39,323.00. The statement of facts speaks of refund claim of Rs. 28,80,545.00.2. On examination of the order-in-appeal we find that the same disposes of two orders-in-original. In the first order two refund claims are disposed of which sums have been shown in the E.A.3 Form. In the second order-in-original refund amounting Rs. 28,80,545.00 has been dealt with. It would appear that the Commissioner's appeal is against the first t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Automatic Engineering Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT331Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the common order impugned in these appeals, the Collector (Appeals) has held the various kinds of bolts and nuts manufactured by the common respondent to be classifiable under heading 7318.10. The appeals seek classification of these goods under heading 87.08.2. Heading 73.18 is specifically for bolts, nuts and the like of iron or steel. The heading claimed by the department is for parts of motor vehicles. The ground for classification sought by the department is that the goods are specialised for use in motor vehicles, manufactured for this purpose and use thereof.3. Note 2(b) to section XVII of the Tariff excludes from that section, parts of general use as defined in note 2 to section XV of base metal (and also similar goods of plastic). Among the parts of general use defined in column 2 to section XV included articles of heading 73.18 and similar articles of other base metal. The Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature on which the tariff is based repeatedl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »