Mumbai Court September 2000 Judgments
Shaikh Hamid Shaikh Mehtab Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Police Sta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)88; 2001(5)BomCR391
R.K. Batta, J. 1. The appellant was tried for the murder of Gajanan Barghat under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of the charge. The evidence against the appellant primarily consist of written dying declaration as well as oral dying declaration made by the deceased. The trial Court accepted dying declarations as also recovery of knife at the instance of the appellant. As a result, the trial Court convicted the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the previous day of the incident in question, Jainab, mother of the appellant had threatened Shantabai (P.W. 1) who had gone to fetch water from the tap that if anybody from her family goes to their tap, he would be killed. At that time, Sherif, brother of the appellant also threatened Shan...
Tag this Judgment!Aurangabad Industrial Associates Through Its Proprietor Vs. State of M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR554
V.K. Barde, J.1. The petitioner is running an industry in the name and style 'M/s. Aurangabad Industrial Associates'. M/s. K.K. Industries was holding the Plot No. G-25 situated at Chikhalthana, Aurangabad, which is an industrial area, developed by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. M/s. K.K. Industries had obtained a loan from the Maharashtra State Finance Corporation, to run the industry on the said plot. As M/s. K.K. Industries was in arrears of repayment of loan, the rights of M/s. K.K. Industries on the plant and machinery from the said plot was put up for auction through the Court and the petitioner being the highest bidder, purchased that property in the Court auction so as to start its own industry. The petitioner made an application to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), for reconnecting the electrical energy to the said premises which was disconnected by the Board, because of failure of payment of electricity char...
Tag this Judgment!German Remedies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT264Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three applications relate to three appeals arising out of the same order. They are therefore being disposed of by this common order.2. We have heard Shri Atul Setalwad, Sr. Counsel appearing along with Shri D.B. Shroff, Advocate for the applicants and Shri V.K. Choubey for the Revenue.3. The first applicant M/s. German Remedies Ltd. manufactured pharmaceutical products. The two other applicants Shri D.K: Arsiwala and Shri K.V. Gazinkar are employees of the manufacturer. The six bulk drugs manufactured by them were captively consumed in two other factories belonging to the manufacturer after clearance on payment of duty. The duty was paid on the basis of price lists filed by them in Part-I. At a later stage investigations were conducted and the declarations made by the assessees with the Drug Control Authorities were examined. The assessees had declared the cost + profit computation to the drug control authority which was higher than the price declared to the Excise officers b...
Tag this Judgment!Ota Kandla P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC607
1. After hearing both sides on the application for out of turn hearing, we have decided to take up the appeal for disposal today.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla revoking under the Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 1984, licence issued to the appellant to function as the Customs House Agent in Kandla Customs House.3. The notice proposing the revocation of the licence which was issued to the appellant contained five articles of charge sheet. Annexure IV to the notice listed witnesses whom he proposed to rely in support of these charges. Annexure-III is statement of these witnesses as among the evidence proposed to be relied upon. The appellant denied every one of the charges in its reply, and the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs in the Customs House was therefore appointed to conduct an enquiry contemplated in Regulation 23.4. From the report of the enquiry officer, its conclusion that only one out of these 11 witness...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Haridas Ashar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC619
1. To the applications are for waiver deposit of penalties imposed under Rule 209A of Rs. 35.00 lakhs on Ramesh Haridas Ashar, Rs. 20.00 lakhs on Arun Haridas Ashar, and Rs. 5.00 lakhs on Ram Swaroop Jajoo.2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner finds that a substantial quantity of duty payable on fabrics processed by Neha Synthetics (Neha for short), located at Kolhapur District of Maharashtra was evaded. He finds that Neha received gray fabrics, which it processed, and sent the finished processed fabrics without payment of duty to Ram Swaroop Jajoo, who distributed them to various traders. He finds that Jajoo on being questioned had said that he was doing this work on the directions of Ramesh and Arun Ashar. It is on this basis that, penalties have been imposed on these persons. We were told by Mr. K.V. Sahasrabudhe, representing, Jajoo, that verification of the Tribunal's record shows that no appeal has been filed either by Neha or by Prem G. Salihar, its proprietor, who have al...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Kondiba Dhondiba Dalvi Since Deceased by His Lrs. and ors. Vs. Sh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)1BOMLR598; 2001(2)MhLj820
P. S. Patankar, J.1. The main question involved is whether the L. P. A. is maintainable in the present case.2. The respondent was allowed to construct two rooms by the appellant by an agreement dated 25th September, 1982 and the same was let out to the respondent. The rent was Rs. 50/-.3. The Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 2441 of 1987 claiming perpetual injunction against the appellant as he was trying to disturb the possession. However, according to the respondent, he came to be dispossessed during 17th December, 1989 to 19th December, 1989 when he was out of station. Hence, he amended the plaint and prayed for possession.The learned Civil Judge. Junior Division, Pune, by order dated 25th September, 1992, held that the appellant was in possession of the premises on the date of the suit, but was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. But the relief of possession cannot be granted as he had no jurisdiction in view of Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates (...
Tag this Judgment!Bankay Bihari G. Agrawal Vs. M/S Bhagwanji Meghihi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR86
B. N. Srikrishna, J.1. This Reference has been made to the Division Bench by the Learned Chief Justice for resolving a perceived conflict in judgments of learned Single Judges.2. By an Order dated 23rd December, 1999, T. K. Chandrashekhara Das, J., suggested to the learned Chief Justice that the following two questions be referred to a Division Bench for resolving the conflict in judgments of Single Judges :-'1. Whether the discretion vested in the Court can be exercised as a matter of course if the Plaintiff commits any failure to comply with the time frame prescribed under Rule 227 of the High Court Rules coupled with provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 2. Whether time frame stipulated under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be scrupulously followed both by Plaintiff and defendant and whether the Court as a matter of course use its discretion to condone such failure and grant relief to such parties in view of the social objectives that has to be achiev...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Steel Rolling and Forging Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT305Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai reversing the Order-in-Original passed by the Asstt. Commissioner, Mumbai-II dropping the show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1 /93. The assessee is a small scale industries manufacturing re-rollable products. They claimed exemption under Notification No. 1/93. Show cause notice was issued on the ground that the assessees have crossed the limit of Rs. 75,000/- resulting in adjudication proceedings by the Asstt. Commissioner. By the Order-in-original No. 156/97-98, dated 21-11-1997, the Asstt. Commissioner came to the conclusion that the case deserves acceptance of the assessee's arguments. He dropped the proceedings against which the department filed an appeal. In the appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide the impugned order accepted the case of the department in ...
Tag this Judgment!inox Air Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT199Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 54.85 lacs and equal sum of penalty unde: tion 11AC of the Act.2. The applicant supplies oxygen and nitrogen manufactured b] M/s.Lloyds Steel Limited, who is its sole customer. The demand for dut been confirmed by including in the assessable value of these two gase; notional interest on the security deposit of Rs. 2.00 crores paid by the custc compensation paid by the customer to the applicant for not lifting the qua contracted for during a particular period and notional interest on the (sic) land provided by the customer to the applicant on which to set up its plar 3. It is settled that cost of notional interest on advances given buyer should not form part of the assessable value of the goods, in the ah of evidence that the fact of such advance has depressed the price. No such dence is available before us. The fact that Lloyds Steel Limited was the buyer no doubt has to be considered. At the same time, however, there allegation that...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Exxon Exports
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT201Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri Choubey, JDR and the respondents were represented by Shri Anil Balani.2. The issue before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order was whether citric acid specifically listed in Appendix 3A SI. No. 112 of AM 88 Policy would be imported under the term "electroplating salt and brightners" under the REP licence issued under Appendix 17 of the same Policy. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee's claim that citric acid was electroplating salt, following the judgment of the Tribunal in Order No. 1171-1178/94-WB dated 30-6-1994. Against this order, the Commissioner has filed the appeal. The grounds are the same as were made in the first proceedings.It is claimed that an item specifically listed under a particular Appendix could not be cleared under an item listed in generic terms.There is no contest made of the following of the Tribunal's order by the Commissioner nor any citation to the contrary is made...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »