Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

Atul Painters Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT436Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the acceptability, for purpose of modvat credit of three invoices issued by Jagdish Agencies Pvt Ltd, Morbi and two invoices issued by Parekh Chemicals and Colour Company, Mumbai.2. Neither of the two persons in question is the manufacturer. They had purchased the goods, and sold them to the appellant. The invoices were issued between May and July, 1994. Notification 16/94 issued on 30.3.1994, and effective from 1.4.1994 listed as acceptable documents, for the purpose of modvat credit, invoices issued by "wholesale distributor/dealer of a manufacturer who has bought excisable goods either from the manufacturer's factory or from the manufacturer's depot. Following issue of notice proposing not to accept these documents, on the ground that they did not conform to this description, the Assistant Collector passed orders denying the credit. He held that Jagdish Agencies Pvt Ltd was not the wholesale dealer or distributor of the manufactur...

Parul Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant manufactures pesticides.These goods were exempted from payment of duty before 01/03/1994.On 08/04/1994 a truck was intercepted carrying such pesticides totally valued at Rs.11,16,955/-.Part of the goods valued at Rs.3,12,660/- was covered by duty paying documents.The remaining part valued at Rs.8,04,295/- was not so covered.These goods were therefore seize along with truck carrying the goods. The check of the finished goods with those shown in the statutory records resulted in finding of excess stock totally valued at Rs.65,800/-. This stock was also seized. The assessee's claim was that certain goods were cleared by them prior to 01/03/1994.These goods had been returned back to the factory for reprocessing and returned. Since these were cleared prior to the imposition of duty, on such second clearance no duty was chargeable.The Commissioner did not accept this defence and held that the good had been cleared without payment of duty.Certain goods had been cleared on 04...

Noor Sales Corporation and E.G. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By order-in-original No. GF/I/4/Add/98 dated 27/02/1998 the Additional Commissioner, Mumbai-IV confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 5,14,759/- on M/s. E.G. Kantawala, Mumbai - 11. He also confirmed the demand of Rs. 31,780/- invoking the provisions of Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Act. Goods worth Rs. 82,075/- were confiscated giving option to redeem it on payment of Rs. 16,415/-. Individual penalty of Rs. 1 lakhs was imposed on M/s. E.G. Kantawala. Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. Noor Sales Corporation was also imposed. On Shri Nooruddin A. Kantawala a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed invoking the provisions contained in Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Aggrieved by that order two appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Along with the appeals applications for waiver of pre-deposit were also moved. In the appeal filed by M/s. E.G.Kantawala the Commissioner (Appeals) directed appellant to deposit an amount equivalen...

G.B. Gadre and Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Learned Counsel representing the appellant submits that he does not wish to proceed with the appeal and it may be dismissed as withdrawn.In view of the above submission the appeal is dismissed....

Shri Mastan Kasim Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Comm ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1331; (2001)3BOMLR208; 2001CriLJ3671

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes himself as father of the detenu Mukhtar Mastan Shaikh, has impugned the order dated 28.6.2000 passed by the second respondent Mr. 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 28.6.2000 served on the detenu on 5.12,2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned order is founded on one C. R. namely C. R. No. 83/2000 under sections 387. 504, 34 of the I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint dated 26.2.2000 filed by Salim Makarani at Dindoshl Poli...

Ramesh Dwarkadas Mehra Vs. Indravati Dwarkadas Mehra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom470; 2001(3)ALLMR668; 2001(4)BomCR417; 2001(4)MhLj483

B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. Notice of Motion No. 2172 of 1998 in Suit No. 2747 of 1998 was directed to be placed before this Bench by an order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice in exercise of the powers under Rule 28 of the High Court of Judicature Original Side Rules. 1980 for the said Notice of Motion could be more advantageously heard by this Bench along with Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 112 of 1998 and 121 of 1998 for deciding a common question of law which has arisen in all of them.2. Though the facts in the two Letters Patent Appeals and the Notice of Motion are different, the common question of law which arises for our consideration, and which would affect the outcome of all these proceedings, is formulated by us as under :'Whether a Suit by a licensor against a gratuitous licensee is tenable before the Presidency Small Cause Court under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 or should such a Suit be filed before the Civil Court? FACTS IN L.P.A. NO. 112 OF 1998 3. This Let...

Yunus Daud Bhura Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2065; 2002BomCR(Cri)383; (2001)4BOMLR181; 2001(3)MhLj783

R.K. Batta, J.1. The applicant, who is an Advocate, approached this Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of First Information Report as also investigation under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the 'Act'). The applicant has made further prayer to stay his arrest. By order dated 11.11.1997 by way of interim relief the police were directed not to arrest the applicant and the said order was continued vide order dated 15.12.1997 till final disposal of the matter after the matter was admitted.2. Learned Advocate for the applicant made the following submissions before me:--(1) There is delay of fifteen days in filing the complaint.(2) That, the utterances attributed to the applicant do not make out any case under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act.(3) The alleged utterances were not made within the 'public view' as no witnesses were present and the witnesses are alleged to have come to the room...

Anand Rathi and ors. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR646; 2002(2)BomCR403; (2002)1BOMLR150; [2002]110CompCas837(Bom); 2002(1)MhLj522

ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. Rule is issued and is made returnable forthwith.2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for the issue of writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the order dated 12-3-2001 and the Circular of even date issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in exercise of powers under Section 11 read with Section 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992, hereinafter referred to as the said Act. The petitioners are also seeking to quash orders dated 30-3-2001 and 13-4-2001 passed by the SEBI confirming the order dated 12-3-2001.3. The 1st petitioner is a broker at the Bombay Stock Exchange and he was President of the Stock Exchange during the relevant period. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 are private limited companies engaged in broking, investments, banking etc. The respondent No. 1 SEBI is constituted under Section 3 of the said Act. The respondent No. 2 is the Bombay Stock Exchange which is recognized under ...

Suman Bhanwarlal Somani Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1333; (2001)3BOMLR419; 2002(1)MhLj752

Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who styles herself as the wife of the detenu-Bhanwarlal Hiralal Somani has impugned the order dated 2-4-1998 passed by the 2nd respondent Mr. G. S. Sandhu, the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) and the Detaining Authority, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032 detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988).It is pertinent to mention that in prayer clause (c) the petitioner has also prayed that a direction or order be passed for quashing and setting aside the freezing order bearing F. No. CA/MUM/III/PITNDPS/99/530 dated 9-2-2000 passed by Shri Maheshwar Prasad, the Competent Authority against the detenu but counsel for the petitioner has not pressed this prayer.The detention order along with grounds of detention was served on the detenu...

Shivendra Bikaram Singh (Ex. Lt.) Vs. Union of India(Uoi), Through the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)BomCR695

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order passed by the Court Martial dated 4th September, 2000 (Exh. P.I.); by the Admiral Chief of the Naval Staff dated 8th January, 2001 in Judicial Review of trial by Court Martial (Exh.P.2) as well as order passed by him in exercise of powers conferred under section 163 of the Navy Act, 1957 vide order dated January 31, 2001 (Exh. P.2/A). The petitioner challenges these orders whereby the Chief of the Naval Staff has maintained the findings of the Court Martial and held him guilty under sections 497, 452 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code respectively read with section 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957, but modified the sentence to one of Rigorous Imprisonment as a Class I prisoner for a period of 12 calendar months; to be dismissed from Naval Service and to suffer the consequential penalties involved.2. The petitioner was tried in the Court Martial proc...