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.
Rathika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC824
1. The appellants were manufacturing wrappers labels etc. by printing customer's design logos etc. on the plastic, paper or combination of Plastic & Paper Sheets as per customers specification. The classification of such product under Heading 4901.90 was accepted by the Department from 1986. On 9-8-88 the same classification was approved finally. However, the wording "subject to Chemical Test" was also recorded thereon. The samples were drawn from July 1989 to January 1990. The test report showed that the product were printed upon paper, plastic, plastic or combination of both. Show cause notice dated 3-2-1994 were issued raising demand for the period 16-1-1989 to 28-2-1989 on the ground that the classification warranted was as per the base material that is either under Chapter 49 or under Chapter 39.Extended period was invoked on the allegations of suppression etc.Before the Commissioner a number of judgements were cited basically claiming limitation. The Commissioner however, co...
Halimabee Quari Abdul and ors. Vs. Abdul Ahad Bukhari Deceased Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj236
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent No. 10 - State.2. None present for the respondents No. 1 to 9 though served.3. Perused the records.4. The petitioners challenge the order dated 17-7-1992 passed by the Magistrate and confirmed by the revisional Court by order dated 22-12-1992. The learned Magistrate had declared the proceedings for execution of the order of maintenance to have been abated on account of the death of the husband of the petitioner No. 1 placing reliance upon the decision in the matter of Ambadas Bajirao vs. Annapurna Bai reported in AIR 1953 Nag. 248 . The impugned judgment is sought to be challenged by the petitioners and the learned advocate for the petitioners placing reliance upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Prithviraj Singh v. Pavanvir Kaur reported in has contended that the Courts below have failed to consider as to whether the e...
Smt. Malati Rajaram Bhat Vs. Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)792; 2001BomCR(Cri)785; (2001)2BOMLR347
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this criminal writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who describes herself as the mother of the detenu Sunil @ Babu Rajaram Bhat. has impugned the detention order dated 29.7.2000. passed by the first respondent, Shri M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police. Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV) of 1981 (Amendment 1996).The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 29.7.2000, was served on the detenu on 1.8.2000 and their True copies are annexed to this petition.2.Aperusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one C.R.. namely, C. R. No. 59/2000 under sections 387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code r/w sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, registered on the basis of a compla...
Hasan Ismail Dalvi Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1445; 2001BomCR(Cri)761; (2001)2BOMLR875
N. V. Dabholkar, J. 1. Three appellants were tried vide N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 417 of 1991 in the Court of Special Judge for Greater Bombay. By the Judgment delivered on 18th, 19th and 26th of November of 1996, learned Special Judge held accused No. 1 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 23. 28 read with 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and 120-B of the I.P.C., so also Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 13(2) of the F.E.R.A.Act. He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 13 years and fine of Rs. 2,000, in default, rigorous imprisonment for two years, on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for one year on the second count.Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are held guilty for the identical charges, except under Section 13(2) of the F.E.R.A. Act and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for one year.Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are separately sentenced to suffer rigorous i...
Sardar Pruthisingh Vs. Kanchanlal Purshottamdas Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Bom255; (2001)3BOMLR120; 2001(2)MhLj948
ORDERV.C. Daga. J. 1. The lucid and comprehensive judgment running into 44 pages delivered by the Division Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay on 1st August, 1987 in Appeal No. 21/E of 1975 reversing the judgment and order dated 13th December, 1974 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court in Ejectment Application No. 138/619/E of 1971 gives full account of the facts giving rise to this litigation.2. I give only brief summary needed to understand the issue extracted hereinbelow :The Issue The only issue involved in this petition is : Whether the document (Exh. A) executed by the parties at the time when the respondent was inducted in the suit premises, is in the agreement of leave and licence or a deed of lease? In other words, the main question involved in this petition is whether the respondent is licensee or tenant in the suit premises.Facts-in-brief 3. The petitioner is a owner of the suit building. Ejectment proceedings were initiated by the petitioner under section 41 of t...
Kiran Industrial Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Janata Kamgar Union ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR494; 2001(4)BomCR550; (2001)3BOMLR180; [2001(89)FLR707]; (2001)ILLJ1499Bom; 2001(4)MhLj665
ORDERR. J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 1960. It has employed four persons as watchmen and has been paying wages between the range of Rs. 770 to Rs. 880 per month. In addition to the four watchmen, there are two clerks employed by the society. The society has 200 members as the owners of the industrial units or Industrial galas. The society has several commercial premises wherein different kind of commercial or trading activities are carried on by the owners of the units. The society is registered as a commercial premises society. The society has nothing to do with the commercial or trading activities of its members. The society itself is not carrying on any commercial or trading activity. The society is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 25th September. 2000 given by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai in Complaint ULP No. 621 of 1995 filed by the respondent union and the con...
Parvatibai W/O Narayan Savara Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1475
Dr. Pratibha Upasani. J.1. This Appeal has been filed by the appellant/original accused Parvatibai Narayan Savara, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7.9.1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 296 of 1984. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge, Thane, convicted the appellant Parvatibai for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to suffer imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution story can be briefly narrated as follows : Parvatibai, a middle aged woman, was residing at Dssarpada, Ganjad, which is a tiny village in Taluka Dahanu, District Thane. The deceased Ladkibai was the mother-in-law of the accused Parvatibai. Ladkibai was first married to one Devlya Savara. The complainant/P.W. 1 Jivlya was born to Ladkibai from Devlya. After the death of Devlya, the deceased Ladkibai married for the second time to one Mahadu, who was the father-in-law of the accused. Mahadu also died and about one...
Kundanlal S/O Vishveshvarlal Soni and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR891; 2001CriLJ2288
R.K. Batta, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and learned A.P.P. 2. The applicants, in this revision, challenge concurrent findings of two Courts below. The applicants were tried for the offence under section 406 read with section 34 I.P.C. and by judgment dated 18-7-1995 of J.M.F.C. Gondia, the applicants were convicted for the offence under section 406 read with section 34 I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years as also fine of Rs. 2000/- in default, simple imprisonment for three months each. The applicants challenged the conviction and sentences before the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, vide judgment dated 16th July 1998, dismissed the appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Chawlibai w/o Rameshwarlal Bajaj had given six bangles weighing 69 grams 500 milligrams to applicant No. 1 Kundanlal on 25-1-1987 for repair of Minakari work on the said bangles. The applicant Kundanlal and his son ap...
ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Cc (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)(96)LC237Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants imported Iron Ore. The nearest Jetty for them to receive the consignment was at Dharamtar in Raigad District. The Collector of Customs (Prev.), Bombay issued a Notification No. 1/94 (NT) dt. 3.10.1994 to facilitate such unloading. The notification in its entirety reads as follows: I, M.G. Venugopalan, Collector of Customs (Prev.), Bombay, by virtue of powers vested in me under Section 8(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) hereby approve "Dharamtar' port in the Dist. Raigad, State of Maharashtra, detailed in the schedule below and as specified in Col. No. 2 & 3 of the said Schedule to be the place for unloading/loading of imported/export goods and permit anchorage of mother vessel of M/s. Nippon Denro Ispat Ltd., Dharamtar, Taluka Alibag only at BFL, Bombay High Sea subject to the strict observance of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and other instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time; and also specify the limits of Customs ...
ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC688
1. The appellants imported Iron Ore. The nearest Jetty for them to receive the consignment was at Dharamtar in Raigad District. The Collector of Customs (Prev.), Bombay issued a Notification No. 1/94 (NT) dated 3.10.94 to facilitate such unloading. The notification in its entirety reads as follows: I, M.G. Venugopalan, Collector of Customs (Prev.), Bombay, by virtue of powers vested in me under Section 8(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) hereby approve 'Dharamtar' port in the Dist. Raigad, State of Maharashtra, detailed in the schedule bel'ow and as specified in Col. No. 2 & 3 of the said Schedule to be the place for unloading/loading of imported/export goods and permit anchorage of mother vessel of M/s. Nippon Denro Ispat Ltd., Dharmtar, Taluka Alibag only at BFL, Bombay High Sea subject to the strict observance of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and other instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time; and also specify the limits of Customs ...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »