Mumbai Court August 2000 Judgments
Mr. Dunstan Savio Mcness @ Tony Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca, the Commission ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)436; 2001BomCR(Cri)211; (2001)1BOMLR184; 2000(4)MhLj760
R. M. Lodha. J. 1. This group of 7 writ petitions though relates to the different detenus who have been detained under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short 'M.P.D.A. Act'), was heard together by consent of the appearing parties in view of the common question involved and all these writ petitions are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The detenus in these 7 writ petitions came to be detained under separate detention orders passed under Section 3(1) of the M.P.D.A. Act by the Commissioner of Police. Brihan Mumbai, the authority empowered under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the M.P.D.A. Act. The detention orders were passed by the said authority to prevent them from acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. In all these cases, the detention orders were forwarded by the Detaining Authority to the State Government for approval immedia...
Tag this Judgment!Sindhu Education Society Vs. the Municipal Corporation of City of Ulha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom145; 2001(2)BomCR523; (2001)2BOMLR43; 2001(1)MhLj894
V.C. Daga, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to seek a Writ of Mandamus to compel respondent No. 1 - Municipal Corporation of City of Ulhasnagar ('Corporation', for short) to discharge its duty and obligation under statute to see that the residential or commercial area of the town is not spoilt by unauthorised construction.FACTS IN BRIEF In order to appreciate the grievance or the petitioner against the Corporation, few relevant facts need to be noticed at the outset :-2. The petitioner is an Educational Public Trust, duly registered under Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Respondent No. 1 is a Corporation duly constituted under Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 ('said Act of 1.949', for short). Respondent No. 1 is also a Planning Authority within the meaning of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Respondent No. 2 is the Commissioner of respondent No. 1 - Corporation. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the persons who have i...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimrao S/O Harbaji Gedam Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)113; 2001(5)BomCR346; 2001CriLJ4920
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for the murder of his wife by burning under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court found the appellant guilty of the said charge and sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment as also fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default R.I. for six months. The period of detention during the trial has been set off in terms of section 428 Cri.P.C.2. The prosecution case, as unfolded by the dying declaration of the deceased Nirmala is that on 28-3-1990, at about 3 p.m., there was a quarrel between her and her husband namely the appellant. The quarrel had taken place over the issue of sale proceeds of a pair of bullocks sold by her husband. The appellant was demanding money from the deceased and since the deceased refused to part with money, the appellant beat her. In a fit of anger, the deceased threw the money, upon which the appellant closed the door of the house and said: 'you have thrown the money, now you must die.' On hearing this, the de...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra R. Tondulkar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR301; 2001(1)BomCR744; [2001(88)FLR65]
D.Y. Chandrachud, J1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent. Petition taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner has been employed with the first respondent since 1979. By this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner seeks to impugn the findings which have been arrived at in the course of Departmental Enquiry and the order of penalty which has been passed in pursuance thereof. At the material time, the petitioner was working as Store Attendant in the Common Service Department of Godown No. 5-B of the first respondent at Bhandup, Mumbai. The Departmental Enquiry came to be initiated in the present case by a chargesheet dated 24th October, 1996 in respect of certain events which were alleged to have occured almost 10 years earlier, in 1986. In 1986, the petitioner was a Store Attendant at the aforesaid godown of the Municipal Corporation. On 24th October, 1996, as stated above, a chargesheet came to be issued against the petitioner whereby the follow...
Tag this Judgment!Liladhar Pasoo Forwarders Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT737Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is a Customs House Agent, licensed to clear the goods at Mumbai and other places. The appellant undertook clearance of a consignment each of oxytetracycline and tet-racycline imported by M/s.Bombay Pharma Products in 1-993 (sic). The import was claimed duty free in terms of notification 203/92. The claim was accepted and the goods cleared. Subsequently, the department issued notice to the importer, the appellant before us, and others. The notice alleged that the benefit of the notification was not available for the reason that export obligation to be undertaken by the importer had not been complied with and the imported goods had been sold to M/s. Kantilal Manilal, a trader. A penalty was proposed on the appellant for the reason that it abetted the sale by the importer. This appeal is against the order of the Collector imposing a penalty of Rs. 5.00 lacs under clause (a) of Section 112 of the Act.2. The reason advanced by the Collector for imposing penalty on the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Bharat Forge Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT169Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal the includibility in the assessable value' of the cost of drawings supplied by customers for forged product manufactured by the respondent, has been settled by the Tribunal in its decision in CCE v. Bharat Forge, in E/776/95-A. The Tribunal said that the assessable value could not include the cost of drawings supplied by customer.2. The departmental representative's contention that, had the drawings not been supplied, the assessee would have been required to incur expenditure in their development which would have then formed part of the assessable value, is not relevant. It is not the department's case the assessee was doing anything other than make forgings according to the dimension of the customers. It was in other words not engaged in design of the products, which it forged. These designs were made by someone else; the assessee's work was to make the forgings....
Tag this Judgment!Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT665Tri(Mum.)bai
2. By the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner of Customs, Jawahar Custom House, has confirmed the demand for duty issued to the appellant on his finding that it has wrongly claimed and being granted the benefit of Notification 203/92. He finds that the condition in the notification that the Modvat credit should not have been availed of in the manufacture of exported product had not been complied with.3. On 19-5-2000 the advocate for the applicant stated that the notice to show cause demanding duty had not been received by the applicant.The matter was adjourned in order for the departmental representative to verify it and produce evidence of service. On the next date of hearing on 27-6-2000 the departmental representative asked for further time for verification. We had asked the advocate for the applicant to submit an affidavit confirming non-receipt of the notice. That affidavit affirmed by R. Padman, Executive-Import of the applicant, has been produced. The departmental re...
Tag this Judgment!Fargo Mantle Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT452Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals are by Fargo Mantle Products and Raju A. Ajani and Ibrahim Kalania, two of its directors. The appeals are against the order of the Commissioner demanding duty of Rs. 4.55 crores approx. on tubular impregnated fabrics manufactured by the assessee for further use in manufacture of gas mantles and Rs. 21 lakhs on paper bags manufactured by it, used for packing these mantles.2. The process of manufacture of these fabrics in essence is as follows. The tubular fabric is knitted from viscous rayon yarn. The fabric is thereafter impregnated with chemicals, thorium, aluminium nitrate, cerium, which are necessary to give the product the mantle its attributes. It is then cut to smaller shapes, and the ends tied and thereafter these stages are ironed into a circular disc and packed. The mantle manufactured by the appellant is attached to high pressure kerosene lantern. The Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology, Kirk and Othmer narrates that the heat produced in this lantern burns ...
Tag this Judgment!Maria Sera Pinto Vs. Milton Dias
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR585; (2001)1BOMLR56; I(2002)DMC554; 2000(4)MhLj633
1. These petitions have been placed before us at the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice for a decision as to whether the procedure contemplated under Section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 of confirmation of a decree nisi made by the High Court on its original side is still required in view of the coming into force of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The present petitions are all petitions filed under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of the marriage on different grounds. In each of these petitions a decree nisi has been made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of the matrimonial Jurisdiction of this Court. These decree nisi are required to be confirmed by virtue of provisions in section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act. We are informed that there are about 200 other similar matters where decree nisi has already been made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of powers under section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. It is not nec...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakant Ganpat Sovitkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)1BOMLR369; 2000(4)MhLj581
B. B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard Shri M. S. Phatak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A. B. Gaikwad, learned A.P.P. for the State.2. The petitioner has filed this Criminal Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashment of the order of attachment of movable and immovable property passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad.3. The petitioner was a police officer. He is permanent resident of Kallamnuri, District Parbhani. In 1956, he was selected as P.S.I. He completed his training in the year 1956-57 at Hyderabad and Nasik. He owned 17 acres of land at Shivani and 4 acres of land at Dhanora. Tq. Kallamnuri, District Parbhani. The petitioner has already sold land to the extent of 4 acres situated at Dhanora in the year 1960 for Rs. 1500/-. He has also sold two houses for Rs. 47,000/- in the year 1984 and 1986 respectively. The petitioner was the only earning member in the family. He had no source of in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »