Mumbai Court February 2001 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.
Philip Fernandes Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT250Tri(Mum.)bai
2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has ordered confiscation under Section 113 of foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 86.44 lakhs, which was seized from the possession of the appellant when he was returning to Dubai from Mumbai on 15-3-1998. The Commissioner accepts that the appellant had brought this currency with him when he came to Mumbai from Dubai on 11-2-1998. He accepts the explanation and evidence tendered to him in support that the appellant obtained the majority part of the currency in exchange for UAE Dirham from Thomas Cook Al Rostamani at Dubai, and also agrees that the remaining amount was legitimately obtained by him at Dubai. He has however found the currency liable to confiscation as it was not declared when it was brought into India and "his taking lenient view" permitted redemption of the currency on payment of Rs. 10 lakhs subject to this credited to his NRE account and imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.3. In our view, once the Commissioner accepts that the appe...
Ventron Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT445Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Ventron Chemicals Limited, the appellant before us, has two factories. It manufactures, in its factory at Silvasa anti static oil.The counsel for the appellant tells us that the principal raw material for manufacture of this oil is ethylene oxide. The process of manufacture involves conversion of ethylene oxide into ethoxylate and its subsequent conversion into anti static oil. The initial conversion of ethylene oxide into ethoxylate was carried out at the appellant's factory at Panoli.2. In March, 1996, the factory at Silvasa intimated Assistant Commissioner that it had made temporary arrangement at its factory at Panoli to partially manufacture organic surface active agent and organic chemicals falling under headings 3420.90 and 2905.90 of the Tariff on its behalf. It asked for necessary permission. The annexures to this application gave details of the raw materials, and had indicated that Panoli factory would manufacture the intermediate product from the ethylene oxide and the f...
Jupiter Exports and ors. Vs. Cc (Genl)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)(96)LC551Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The undisputed facts leading to these appeals are as follows.Jupiter Exports, Mumbai applied for and obtained 12 advance licences and DEEC books. These documents conferred upon it the right to import polyester filament yarn, dyes and bronze powder, subject to these being utilised in the manufacture of polyester filament, the specified quantity of which were to be exported, or as replenishment used to make the exported product. Jupiter Exports, one of the appellants before us, manipulated documents such as test reports and invoices to show that it had exported fabrics of weight and length considerably greater than what actually was exported. In accordance with the provisions of the Policy, where the export obligation has been fulfilled, the import licence can be transferred. These licences were utilised by various persons to import the goods specified therein without payment of duty in terms of notification 204/92. On their importation, the importers claimed, and were granted, the b...
BipIn J. Shah Vs. Smt. Niru B. Mehta and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)789; 2001BomCR(Cri)574; (2001)2BOMLR377; 2001CriLJ4819; 2001(2)MhLj632
Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Criminal Application is filed by the applicant Bipin Shah, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.1.1995 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade. Bombay in C. C. No. 902/S/90. By the impugned order, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the application for discharge made by the accused No. 2/present applicant Bipin Shah.2. Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows : The complaint dated 20.2.1995 came to be filed by the complainant -Smt. Neeru B. Mehta in the 28th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade. Bombay in C. C. No. 902/S/90 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act r/w. 420 and 114 of the I.P.C. against one Ashok Mehta and Bipin Shah. The case of the complainant, to put it briefly, was that the complainant and her husband had handed over amount of Rs. 2,60,000/ - to accused No. 1 - Ashok Mehta to help both the accused in business. Both the accused are known to the complainant and her husband...
Sanjay Pandey, D.C.P., Narcotic Cell, Bombay Vs. Chhaganlal J. JaIn an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)425; 2001BomCR(Cri)691; (2001)2BOMLR712; 2001CriLJ2127; 2001(4)MhLj507
Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J. 1. This Criminal Application is made by the applicant/accused No. 2 Sanjay Pandey, being aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.1995 of issuance of process passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai in C.C. No. 13/S/1995. This order of issuance of process came to be issued against the accused No. 1 Ram Sanehi Ganesh Datta through Sanjay Pandey under Section 506(ii) r/w 104 of the I.P.C. At the behest of the complainant, Chhaganlal J, Jain filed his complaint dated 3.1.1995 against both the accused in the learned Metropolitan Magisirate, 12th Court at Bandra.2. The contents of the complaint dated 3.1.1995 can be briefly narrated as follows :The complainant's case was that he was residing at and in actual lawful possession of upper portion of first floor of GNMC 1-1/2, NaikNagar, L.B.S. Marg, Near Sion Railway Station, Sion, Bombay - 400022 since 21.4.1982 and was residing there along with his family members. He was also carrying on shop of Adinath ...
Malani Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MhLj38
J.N. Patel, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The appellants assessees have filed their return of Income for the year 1993-1994 on 27-10-1993 declaring a total income as nil. On being assessed the assessment officer passed an order of assessment dated 29-3-1996 determining the income at Rs. 6,09,000/- (ITA No. 2/2000) and Rs. 5,38,444/- (ITA No. 372000) and passed the assessment orders which were impugned by the appellants in the appeals filed before theCommissioner Income Tax under Section 249 of the Income Tax Act. The same came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order the appellants then moved the Income Tax Tribunal, Nagpur, under Section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by filing appeals in prescribed form No. 36 as provided under Rule 47 (1) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (for short the 'said Rules'). Form No. 36 is required to be signed at three places by the appellants, one in front of the form below ite...
Malani Trading Co. and Malani Tendu Leaves Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR670(Bom)
J.N. Patel, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The appellants-assessees have filed their return of income for the year 1993-94 on October 27, 1993, declaring the total income as nil. On being assessed the Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment dated March 29, 1996, determining the income at Rs. 6,09,000 (I.T.A. No. 2 of 2000) and Rs. 5,38,444 (I. T. A. No. 3 of 2000) and passed the assessment orders which were impugned by the appellants in the appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 249 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The same came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants then moved the Income-tax Tribunal, Nagpur, under Section 253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by filing appeals in the prescribed Form No. 36 as provided under Rule 47(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (for short the 'said Rules'). Form No. 36 is required to be signed at three places by the appellants, one in front of t...
Shahanazbegum Kadarbasha Shaikh and anr. Vs. Kadarbasha Usman Shaikh a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR401; 2001CriLJ1215; I(2002)DMC375
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. This writ petition arises out of the maintenance proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solapur. Petitioner No. 2 is the son of the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 were married on 29-5-1997.The petition prays to set aside the order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Solapur on 4-4-1994 in Criminal Revision No. 137 of 1992 and award maintenance in favour of the wife.2. The admitted facts in this contest for the maintenance are as follows :-First legal battle for the maintenance took place in the form of application by wife under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being Application No. 115 of 1980. (Henceforth, the parties are referred to as the wife, husband and child for the sake of brevity). The application concluded in favour of the petitioners and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 and Rs. 25 per month was awarded in...
Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC448
R.K. Batta, J.1. These revisions arise out of the same incident of which the applicants were tried in one trial. The applicants were convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Applicant Maroti was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 300.00, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month. Applicants Purushottam and Pandurang were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 days. Anjanabai, who was accused No. 2 before the Trial Court, was also held guilty for the offence under Section 4 of the said Act and was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default, simple imprisonment for 2 days. All the applicants as also Anjanabai preferred appeal before the Sessions Court, Amravati, but their appeal was dismissed. The applicants now chall...
Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2792
R.K. Batta, J.1. These revisions arise out of the same incident of which the applicants were tried in one trial. The applicants were convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Applicant Maroti was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 300.00, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. Applicants Purushottam and Pandurang were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 days, Anjanabai, who was accused No. 2 before the trial Court, was also held guilty for the offence under Section 4 of the said Act and was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default, Simple Imprisonment for 2 days. All the applicants as also Anjanabai preferred appeal before the Sessions Court, Amravati, but their appeal was dismissed. The applicants now challen...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »