Mumbai Court March 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Indo-rama Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT367Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We have heard Shri B.K. Choubey for the Revenue and Shri D.C. Dighe for the Respondent.2. The respondents when narrating the details of the amounts charged from their buyers, in the invoices issued under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 indicated certain amounts as per the following entry: Vide show cause notice dated 31-10-1994 it was alleged that such charges collected during the period April 1994 to June 1994 were includible in the assessable value and the resultant demand of Rs. 1,931/- was made before the Assistant Collector. Case law was cited to the effect that such charges were not includible. The claim was made that the charges were incurred at the place of destination and as such the question of inclusion did not arise. The Assistant Commissioner observed that the charges were called "loading/unloading and handling charges". He arbitrarily split the charges into two and held that the loading charges were includible. Since they were incurred inside the factory li...
Azad Kamgar Union Vs. M/S. Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR87; (2001)3BOMLR147; [2001(90)FLR798]; (2002)IVLLJ923Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioner Union is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.1999 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 842 of 1998 filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents alleging an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 6 of Schedule II and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. It may he clarified at this stage itself that the Petitioner Union had given up its allegation of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 6 of Schedule II of the Act and had confined its case only to Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The grievance of the Petitioner Union was that the Respondent Company had effected closure of its establishment by a notice dated 25.6.1998 in violation of Section 25FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner had prayed for an interim order from the Industrial Court but it failed to succeed. It also failed to succeed in its challenge to the interim order of th...
Shri Jayantilal Modi and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)601; 2001BomCR(Cri)908; (2001)3BOMLR385; 2002(81)ECC33; 2001(2)MhLj615
Vishnu Sahai. J.1. On 14th July. 2000, while S. A. Bobde, J. was hearing Criminal Appeal Nos. 622 of 1994, 643 of 1994, 649 of 1994 and 82 of 1995, two conflicting decisions of this Court were cited before His Lordship; Longuram Tariram Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, wherein this Court had taken the view that since in pursuance of prior information the accused were found in possession of charas at the S.T. stand Pune, which was a public place, as contemplated by section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to by us as the N.D.P.S. Act) it was not necessary to comply with the provisions of section 42 of the N.D.P.S.Act in terms that the information had to be recorded in writing and its copy sent forthwith to the official superior and Bindarsingh v. State of Maharashtra, wherein it was laid down that even if the information pertained to recovery of a narcotic substance under the N.D.P.S. Act was in relation to a public place, it was obliga...
Vasudeo Tulsiram Jambhale Vs. Raghuvir Singh S/O Umedh Thakur and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR61; 2002(3)MhLj596
S.D. Gundewar, J.1. The present review application is filed by the respondent/tenant seeking review of the judgment passed by me on 27-8-1998 in Second Appeal No. 157/84 arising out of Regular Civil Suit No. 126/81.2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this Review Application may briefly be stated as under --An open site admeasuring 171/2 ft. x 8 ft. in addition to some other open portion from plot Nos. 28 and 30, sheet No. 20, situated at Akot, District Akola was let out by the original plaintiff/landlord to the original defendant/tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 5/-. The tenancy month of the defendant commences from the first day of every English calendar month and ends on the last day of the same month. The rent was payable at the end of every month. The defendant raised a structure on the said open site at his own cost. The defendant failed to pay rent regularly and remained in arrears of rent for 36 months amounting to Rs. 180/- in addition to the amount of Rs. 20/- towards mu...
Udhav Uttam Patil Vs. Daga Holkya Bhil Since Deceased Through L.Rs. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR841; 2001(2)BomCR597; (2001)4BOMLR249; 2001(3)MhLj916
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Rule. Respondents wave service. By consent of the parties, rule made returnable forthwith.2. This group of petitions raises a common challenge regarding the right of the Divisional Commissioner to reopen the inquiry already concluded by the Collector under the provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (the Act for short), by invoking the powers under section 7 of the said Act. By the said impugned notices dated 13th August, 1996 the Additional Divisional Commissioner. Nasik Division at Nasik has proposed a suo motu revision of the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector after about twenty years. It is contended that the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector had become final and the impugned show cause notices proposing to reopen the settled position are illegal and such powers cannot be allowed to be invoked after a gap of about twenty years or after a reasonably long period.The relevant...
Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC364; AIR2001Bom327; 2001(3)ALLMR1; 2001(4)BomCR526
P.S. Patankar, J.1. A few facts--Sometime in August, 1986, the Appellant imported Onion Dehydration Machinery. This was financed by Maharashtra State Finance Corporation (MSFC). MSFC arranged for Marie-cum-Erection Policy for 18 months period from 12-9-1988. The said policy expired on 12-3-1988. On 25-8-1988, MSFC requested the respondent for renewal of the said policy by letter dated 25-8-1988. Cheque for premium of Rs. 3135/-was also sent. By the said letter, the respondent was asked (i) to renew the policy and (ii) to issue stamped receipt for the premium paid. This was received by the respondent on 26-8-1988. The respondent on 26-8-1988 issued a stamped receipt recording receipt of the premium. On 7-4-1989, the respondent wrote a letter to the appellant pointing out that MSFC, Nasik has deposited on amount of Rs. 3135/-towards the premium for fire policy covering the machinery. A standard form for the fire insurance came to be sent. This was received by the appellant on 16-6-1989. ...
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and ors. Vs. Umesh Korga Bhandari and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR713]; (2001)IILLJ157Bom
1. All these three appeals can be disposed of by this common Judgment since the point involved is the same. In addition, Writ Petitions, out of which these L.P.As. arise, were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the common Judgment. FACTS IN L. P. A. NO. 90 OF 1998:The service of one Kitanna Shetty, who was working as Halwai in the Canteen, came to be terminated and respondent No. 1 was appointed by the Departmental Canteen Committee at Prabhadevi Telephone Exchange of the appellant on January 1, 1986. There is no dispute that no appointment order or any other candidate was called from the Employment Exchange at the time of his appointment. As per the directions of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kitanna Shetty was re-appointed on November 17, 1986. Hence, the service of the respondent No. 1 came to be terminated on November 29, 1986. This came to be challenged by respondent No. 1 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act...
Bhagwan Sahebrao Sonawane and ors. Vs. Ranjanabai Sahebrao Sonawane an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR439; I(2002)DMC49
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. Rule. By consent. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the revision is taken up for final hearing.3. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 6.7.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge J.D. Bhokardan, whereby the petitioners have been directed to pay the interim maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 100/- per month to respondent No. 2 herein.4. Mr. Chatterji, learned Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, made it clear that he is not challenging this order with regard to the liability of such payment by Sahebrao being the father of petitioner No. 1 Bhagwan and father-in-law of petitioner No. 2 Laxmibai to Ranjana-respondent No. 1 being his second wife and minor son Ram-respondent No. 2. Mr. Chatterji drew my attention to the provisions of Section 18 and Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, the said Act). As per Se...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT883Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal from the revenue was argued by Shri B.K. Choubey. Shri Rohan Shah appeared for the respondents.2. The assessees took Modvat credit for input such as Kraft Paper Duplex Board, Gum, Stitching Wire, Printing Ink etc. Their final product was vacuum flasks and other insulated wares. The revenue held that Rule 57A allowed credit to be taken on packaging material but not on materials for use in the packaging material. With this thought show cause notice was issued. The Commissioner dropped the proceedings following the Madras High Court Judgment in the case of Ponds (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1993 (63) E.L.T. 3 and subsequent judgment of the Tribunal. Against this order is the present appeal from the Revenue.3. In the grounds of appeal argued at length by Shri B.K. Choubey it has been stated that the Madras High Court judgment could not be challenged in time before the Supreme Court, being barred by limitation. Even then it is claimed that the High Court Judgm...
Yangir Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT462Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The present appeal was filed on 8-5-1996 along with an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit. In disposing of the application the Tribunal made the following directions : "Considering the submissions, the points involved call for interpretation of the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, as also the Notification No. 101/93. In the context of the provisions contained in Notification No. 32/94, and both the Notifications in context to the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excises & Salt Act. This can be done only at the final hearing stage. We are therefore directed the appellants to make a deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- and furnish a bank guarantee for another sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. They are given time of 3 months to comply with the directions given. They will be at liberty to make the cash deposit by instalments within the stipulated period. On deposit, there shall be stay against recovery and waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amount. They should report ...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »