Mumbai Court September 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.
Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR414
V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Heard respective parties in extenso. 2. A legal battle has been initiated at the instance of the petitioners, to get themselves equated with the persons falling in the definition of 'Member of the Forces' as defined under the Army Act, 1950, so as to get themselves included in the class of persons exempted under section 27-A of the Maharashtra State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1975 ('Act' for short) from payment of professional-tax. 3. Since common questions of law arise in all the petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. In all the petitions, the registered unions along with their members are in the field to claim exemption from the provisions of the Act. The first petitioner, in all the petitions, is registered union representing vast majority of employees employed in the different Ordnance Factories in the State run by t...
Vijay Damaji Gaidhane Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)965; (2001)3BOMLR126; 2001(1)MhLj159
R.K. Batta. J. 1. The petitioner has been detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords. Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act. 1981 (For short, the 'said Act'). The detention order was issued on 21.12.1999 by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act read with Government Order. Home Department (Special). No. DOS. 1399/4/SPL 3(B) dated 19th November. 1999. The detention order was served on the petitioner on the same day and the grounds in support of detention order were served on 22.12.1999. The detention order was approved by the State Government on 1.1.2000. Reference under section 10 of the said Act was made to the Advisory Board on 1.1.2000. The Advisory Board gave its opinion on 31.1.2000. The detention order was confirmed by the State Government on 10.2.2000.2. The petitioner was ordered to be detained on the strength of his involvement in Crime No. 489/99 of ...
Jagatpal Dhuria Vs. Madhav Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR375; [2001(89)FLR90]; (2001)IIILLJ225Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge an Award of the Labour Court at Mumbai in a Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the impugned Award, the Industrial Court has come to the conclusion that the services of the petitioner who had been employed by the first respondent from 1972 until June, 1982 came to be terminated unlawfully without following the procedure established under the law. Neither was any departmental enquiry held, nor was the petitioner paid any retrenchment compensation before his services came to be dispensed with. The Labour Court rejected the defence put forth on behalf of the employer that the petitioner had abandoned service. However, the Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner would in the circumstances of the present case not be entitled to reinstatement and, consequently a direction has been issued to pay to the petitioner compensation in the amount of Rs. 35,000/ in lieu of reinstatement.2. The Award ...
Chandrakant S/O Ganpatrao Ghuse Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR528
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri K.H. Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.R. Gavai, learned Government Pleader for respondents.2. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.3. The petitioner is challenging the action of the respondent No. 3, in holding that no confidence motion against the petitioner (President of the Municipal Council) was passed on 22-02-2000, being contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.4. Shri K.H. Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was the elected President of the Municipal Council, Hinganghat. The Municipal Council is consisted of 33 members, out of which 30 members are elected from the respective wards and 3 members are nominated. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that a special meeting was held on 22-02-2000 to take a decision on the no confidence motion moved...
H.V. Industrial Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT576Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The common question for consideration in these four appeals is the classification of regulators for electric fan manufactured by each of the appellants.2. It is the case of the common advocate for the appellants that these regulators should be classified under heading 8414.20 of the tariff. It is the department's case, as contained in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that they are classifiable under sub-heading 8414.99 of the tariff.3. Heading 84.14 and the sub-headings as they stood at the relevant time (1993-94) are reproduced below : ventilating or recycling hoods incorporating a fan, whether or not fitted with filters. 8414.10 Gas compressors of a kind used in a refrigerating and air conditioning appliances and machinery.2. The arguments of the Advocate for the appellants are that Note 2 of Section XVI of the tariff will apply. This provides that parts which are goods included in all the chapter heading 84 or 85 (other than headings 84, 85, 84.48) are to be clas...
S.J. Metal Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)LC620Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1,72,523.63 demanded for the clearances made by the applicant's factory from 1st April 1989 to 24th July, 1989 on the ground that the benefit of Notification 175/86 would not be available. The reason for this is that the aggregate value of the clearances in the preceding year has exceeded Rs. 150 lakhs, the limit prescribed in paragraph 3 as a pre-condition for availing the notification.2. The contention of the advocate for the applicant is that from 27-4-1989 the limit in paragraph 3 was enhanced to Rs. 200 lakhs since the notification runs annual, it would not make any sense if it is not made applicable to the clearances for the entire financial year. He says that the issue has been decided by the Tribunal in Lakshmi Ishwar Industries - 1998 (29) RLT 540 to this effect. It also cites Board's clarification supporting this.3. The trade notice presumably based on a Board's clarification supports this view. The basis of the trad...
Mayur Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT65Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals are by the holder of the power of attorney of the partner of the firm. The assessee buys scraps of tinned steel, which contain on it a very thin coating of tin and by subjecting this scrap to electrolysis recover the tin content in the coat. Two products, therefore, result, tin and scrap without tin. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector has held that this resulted in the manufacture of tin and of scrap.2. The common advocate for both the appellants does not dispute that manufacture of tin has taken place. He however disputes any manufacture of scrap. What was received by the appellant and returned was scrap.Only difference being microscopic quantity of tin amounting to less than one-tenth of 1% by weight of the scrap was removed. What was received and what was removed by the appellant was therefore scrap.3. We are not able to see how any scrap has been manufactured by the appellant merely by removal of small quantity of tin from the scrap it received. Th...
Piramal Spinning and Weaving Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT75Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is classification of the printing screens made of silk manufactured by the appellant.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the memorandum of appeal and other papers and heard the departmental representative.3. In his order the Collector has held that the printing screens which are made of silk classifiable under sub-heading 5909.00 of the tariff which covers all other textile products and all articles of a kind suitable for industrial use. He has further held that the goods were entitled to exemption under notification 201/87 only from 25-7-1991 when the notification was amended to include these goods. He has overruled the finding of the Assistant Collector that the goods were not entitled to the benefit of the notification.4. The challenge to this order is on various grounds. The first ground is that the Collector (Appeals) could not rely on the provisions of Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised Syste...
Mr. Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through G.B.C.B.C. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4563
ORDERR. M. Lodha. J.1. This criminal bail application is before us on the reference made by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23rd August, 2000. The learned Single Judge before whom this criminal bail application was moved was of the view that since a serious question of law about the interpretation of sections 13 and 14 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act of 1999') and applicability of the proviso to section 167(2) is involved, the matter needs to be heard by the Division Bench for laying down the law on this point.2. The petitioner is accused in C. R. No. 36 of 1999 for the offences under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3 of the Act of 1999. The Petitioner is said to have surrendered on 17th June, 2000 before the. Designated Court constituted under Section 6 of the Act of 1999 and remanded by the concerned Designated Court on that day. We read the proceedings which took...
Murablack India Ltd. Vs. Ubs Ag and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR371; [2003]115CompCas210(Bom); [2004]52SCL38(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. By consent of learned counsel, heard forthwith. 2. By the present motion, the plaintiffs pray that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendants be restrained by an injunction from taking any steps whatsoever to recover from the plaintiffs any amount whatsoever under the loan agreement without first getting permission from the BIFR. The suit by the plaintiff is to restrain defendant No. 5 from encashing the bank guarantee given by defendant No. 5 to defendant No. 1 at the instance of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed in 1997. 3. On November 4, 1999, the plaintiffs moved the BIFR under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The BIFR on March 31, 2000, has declared the company as a sick company. It is subsequent to these events that the present motion. 4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that once a company is declared as a sick company by virtue of Section 22, proceedings against the company cannot be proc...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »