Mumbai Court July 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.
Shri Nathuram Posu Thakur Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)2BOMLR983; 2001(2)MhLj532
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. In all these revision applications a common question of law arises and hence they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.3. In all these revision petitions, the reference applications under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') were filed before the Land Acquisition Officer. However, the same were filed beyond the period of six weeks from the date of receipt of notice under section 12(1) of the said Act. The said applications having been filed beyond the prescribed statutory period of limitation as specified undersection 18 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer rejected the same. Hence the present C. R. A.4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon unreported decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Shri Suresh Marutrao Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., submitt...
Avinash Tambe and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR34; 2001(1)BomCR118
N.J. Pandya, J.1. This public interest litigation has its genesis in a Supreme Court judgment reported in Bombay Hawkers Union & others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, : AIR1985SC1206 . The petitions before the Supreme Court were filed by the Bombay Hawkers Union & others. The main respondent was the Bombay Municipal Corporation, in those petitions (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'). The crux of the petitions was to the effect that the petitioners have a fundamental right to carry on trade, business or calling and that the respondent/Corporation through its officers was unlawfully interfering with that right.2. The Corporation was invoking its power under sections 313, 313A, 314(3) and 497 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation Act'). One of the prayers was to the effect that these provisions be declared as void as they confer upon the respondent/corporation an arbitrary and unguided power to refuse to grant or renew lice...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bralco Metal Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT180Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessee, the respondent to this appeal filed a classification list claiming the benefit of notification 74/65 in respect of copper manufactures. The notification granted partial exemption to these goods subject to the condition that the excise duty or the additional customs duty had been paid on the copper used in the manufacture of such goods.The department was of the view that such duty was not paid and that additional customs duty had not been paid on the imported copper used in the manufacture of the goods and issued notice asking the assessee to show cause why a fresh classification list, apparently without claiming the benefit of notification, should not be filed. The Asst.Collector said that the payment of additional duty of customs had subsequently been paid by the assessee and he dropped the notice.Therefore there was no basis for the respondent to pay any higher rate.He therefore dropped the duty. The Collector (Appeals) to whom the department appealed this order sai...
Pb Traders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC347
1. Consequent on the order of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition 114 of 2000 setting aside the Tribunal's order on the stay application filed by the applicant. Order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order is recalled.3. The High Court has asked the Tribunal to consider the prayer made in the stay application that, even if it was held that duty was payable on the metalised yam manufactured by the applicant, Modvat credit of the duty paid on the metalised filament, out of which the yarn was made, would be available towards payment of such duty.4. After seeking adjournment twice, the Advocate for the applicant has today produced before us copies of invoice from the suppliers of the goods showing payment of duty on the metalised polyester filament supplied to the applicant. The period for which duty is demanded is 1.4.1995 to 1.5.1998. The summary produced by the Advocate for the applicant shows that after taking into account two debits, the credit of Rs. 93.84 l...
Prockage Soapery Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT529Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant asked for and obtained permission in 1971 to avail of the procedure under Rule 56A. This procedure, very briefly permits the manufacturer to take credit of the duty paid on goods used by him in its manufacturing activities, to be utilised by him towards payment of duty on final product in which these goods are utilised. The appellant was granted permission to avail of the procedure in respect of duty paid on soap noodles manufactured by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay which the appellant converted into cakes. It appears that because of difficulties encountered with the department with regard to this procedure, the appellant in November 1982 chose to avail of procedure under Rule 56B, by means of which the noodles in question were cleared from the manufacturer's factory in bond without payment of duty. The permission granted under Rule 56A subsisted and was not cancelled.2. The Modvat scheme incorporated in Rules 57 A to 57-1 came into force from 1-3-1986. The appell...
Naik Ziyaoor Raheman and ors. Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Paris ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR298]; (2000)IILLJ1173Bom
V.K. Barde, J.1. The petitioner was working as a teacher under the Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. His services were terminated by the Zilla Parishad as per the order dated March 17, 1976. Being aggrieved by this order of termination the writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the original petitioner Naik Ziyaoor Raheman was a Government servant and his services were temporarily transferred to Zilla Parishad. He has not executed his option to continue in the service of the Zilla Parishad and in such circumstances he remained to be the Government servant and his services could not have been terminated by the Zilla Parishad authorities. It is also contended that no departmental enquiry was held and the order of termination is bad in law.2. The Zilla Parishad, Parbhani has filed affidavit in reply and it is contended that the petitioner was in Government Service but the Zilla Parishad came into existence on May 1, 1962 as per the provisions of the Maharash...
Subhash Ramchandra Durge Vs. Deepak Annasaheb Gat and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR235; 2000CriLJ4774
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner/original accused Subhash Ramchandra Durge, being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, dated 30th July, 1994, passed by the In-charge Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji. The learned In-charge Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji by his impugned order in R.C.C. No. 179 of 1994 took cognizance of the private complaint filed by respondent No. 2 Ramesh Annasaheb Gat, under section 211 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process against the petitioner.2. Few facts, which are required to be stated, are as follows :The petitioner Subhash Ramchandra Durge had originally filed complaint dated 30th May, 1986 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Inchalkaranji, against one Deepak Annasaheb Gat, Ramesh Annasaheb Gat and Anwar Ainuddin Herwade @ Shaikh for offences punishable under section 407 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The contention of the complainant Su...
Sheela Rani Sharma and ors. Vs. the Municipal Corporation for Greater ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR430
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that the auction sale of the suit property held on 22-6-1977 be declared null and void, and for injunction restraining the defendants from executing the sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser pursuant to the auction sale dated 28-6-1977.2. The suit property which is a building on a piece of land admeasuring 695 sq. meters near Jogeshwari Railway Station was originally owned by the plaintiffs. Income from the said building was the only source of livelihood of the plaintiffs. That the plaintiffs were in arrears of municipal taxes, therefore the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) advertised the suit property for auction. The plaintiffs had given advertisement and the total charges recoverable by the BMC were about Rs. 38,000/-. The defendant No. 1 gave advertisement of the proposed auction in the local newspapers on 6-6-1977 declaring that the auction of the suit property would take place at 4 p.m. on 20-6-1977 ...
Kumaraiah S/O Mallaya Kante Vs. the Marathwada Agricultural University ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR76
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the promotion of the respondent No. 5 given to him in 1987 as Foreman Supervisor. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 was junior in service, as well as junior as a Senior Mechanic grade which is the feeder cadre for the post of Foremen Supervisor. It is the fact that as far as service seniority is concerned, the petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 5 as he joined the service as a Jeep Driver on 20th November, 1956 and he was promoted as Senior Mechanic on 13th April, 1981, while the respondent No. 5 joined the service as Mechanical Engine Driver on 2nd June, 1958 and was promoted as Senior Mechanic on 30th October, 1984.2. The respondent No. 1 has filed its affidavit and has justified the promotion of the respondent No. 5 on the basis of the fact that the respondent No. 5 was possessing better qualifications than the petitioner and therefore he was promoted as Foreman Supervisor. It is also pointed out in the affidavit...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sandvik Asia Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT79Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We have heard the departmental representative. The respondent is absent and unrepresentative despite notice.2. The Tribunal, in its order, had taken the view that the small portion of the inserts and tips were parts of hand tools which were manufactured by the respondent, and utilised in the factory of their production for manufacture of hand tools (the vast majority of such tips and inserts being cleared on payment of duty) were intermediate products in the manufacture of these hand tools. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to take modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the inserts and tips, notwithstanding that the inserts and tips which were captively consumed were exempted from duty under notification 58/86.2. The questions suggested for reference to the High Court are: whether the inserts and tips are intermediate products or final products, and whether, in that situation, it is Rule 57C or Rule 57D(2) will apply.3. The answer to the second...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »