Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Pralhad Mukinda Kshirsagar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1643; (2002)104BOMLR602

J.N. Patel, J.1. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for having committed offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Buldana in Sessions Trial No. 47/1995, by his judgment and order dated 24.7.1995. In nutshell, it is the prosecution case that on 2.11.1994 at about 11:00 a.m., the appellant went to the place where the three sisters i.e. deceased Gokulabai, Asha and Punjabai had gone to outskirts of the village to attend nature's call and were sitting on road side to defecate. The appellant was armed with an axe. He assaulted Gokulabai with the axe by giving three blows on her head. Thereafter, he went and sat on a heap of stone rubble lying there. Punjabai who was about 10/11 years old, ran to her house and narrated the incident to her mother that Pralhad has given blow to Gokula with axe. On this, Lilabai, the mother of the victim, came running to the place and saw Gokula lying there. The appellant was standing nearby with...

Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT408Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The instant appeal has been filed against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai II made on 29.4.1999 which was issued on 7.5.1999. It is stated by the appellant that the impugned order was received by it on 17.5.1999. An appeal against the same has been filed on 16.1.2001 but the same ought to have been filed sometime in August, 1999. Why the delay has been there, the assessee seeks to explain the same by stating that subsequently in October 1999 a Board circular has been issued where under in matters of similar nature, the assessee has been giving the benefit. It is the explanation of the assessee that on the basis of such a clarification given by the Board giving the benefit to the assessees, a refund claim has been filed with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. It is therefore pleaded before us that the action taken by the assessee in prosecuting the refund claim as well as filing the appeal belatedly should be treated as the one done in a bona fide mann...

Tas Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By letter dated 13.6.2001 the appellant has produced a copy of the certificate issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, showing full and final settlement of its dues under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998....

Ambaji Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Somani Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications are for of deposit of the amounts mentioned against each:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Name Duty Penalty Redemption Fine-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ambaji Syntex Pvt Ltd Rs. 1.79 Rs. 1.79 crores Rs. 20,000/-Karanj crores appxor------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ambhaji Syntex Pvt Ltd, Rs. 1.50 Rs. 1.50 crores Rs. 20,000/-Pipodara crores-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mahesh Textrises Rs. 7.19 Rs. 7.19 lakhs Rs. 20,000/- lakhs--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Somani International Rs. 7.11 Rs. 7.19 lakhs Rs. 20,000/- lakhs------------------------------------------...

Corru-carton (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with eh consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The notice issued to the appellant proposed denial of the benefit of the notification 203/92 and consequent recovery of the duty forgone on the goods that the appellant cleared under this notification, on the ground that one of the conditions subject to which the exemption was available, that modvat credit should not have been availed of in the manufacture of the export product, had been contravened.3. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that it did not receive the notice. There is some lack of clarity in this record.Whatever that may be the notice dated 29.1.1999 demanded duty on goods cleared in 1994. it alleged that the importer deliberately suppressed the fact regarding "non-fulfilment of credit under Rule 57A" and alleges that the importer made a wrongful declaration on the export document that modvat credit had not been availed of. Prima facie neither of these charges...

Meher Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR440; (2002)1BOMLR372; 2002(3)MhLj36

H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. The 1st petitioner herein is a company engaged in the manufacture of country liquor. The 2nd petitioner is its Managing Director. The 1st petitioner company at the relevant time was engaged in the manufacture of country liquor from flowers which are known as Mhowra flowers. The petition seeks to challenge the notification issued by the 1st respondent State of Maharashtra under Section 105 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 on 17th July 1987 whereby the excise duty on the country liquor manufactured from Mhowra flowers amongst others came to be revised from Rs. 13/- per proof litre to Rs. 26/- per proof litre. The 2nd respondent to the petition is a Trade Union which has intervened in this matter and got added itself as a party respondent. The 2nd respondent Union is supporting the cause of the petitioners. The challenge to this notification is on the basis of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.2. The 2nd respondent State of Maharashtra has opposed the pra...

Smt. Smita Wd/O Shrikant Vaidya Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commis ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR311; 2001(4)BomCR337; (2001)3BOMLR311; [2002(92)FLR189]; (2001)IILLJ1048Bom

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the orders dated 23rd March. 1990 and dated 3rd August, 1990 passed by the Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund. The Petitioner further prays for a direction to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to pay to the Petitioner every monthly regularly and thereafter family pension which may be admissible to her as per schedule and table given under the Family Pension Funds Scheme, 1971 including the equal contribution by the State and Central Government and by the employer together with interest as may be admissible under the said Scheme.2. The Petitioner's husband joined the services of Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd, after coming into force of Family Pension Scheme. 1971. The said scheme came into force with effect from 1.3.1971. It is the Petitioner's case that since the date of joining the services, the employer was deducting contribution towards Provident Fund from the salar...

The State of Maharashtra at the Instance of Shri R.B. Shete, Food Insp ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)228; (2001)3BOMLR797; 2001(3)MhLj897

Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant State of Maharashtra under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the (Cr.P.C.), being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 23rd December, 1985 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 1, Kolhapur in Criminal Case No. 157 of 1981. By the impugned Judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the Respondents/original accused Mohiddin Gaibi Chougule for offence punishable under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rules thereunder, as amended.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :The Food Inspector Mr. B. K. Karyappa went alongwith Mahadeo Anna Alase (the panch witness), and paid visit to the milk dairy of the Respondent/accused known as M/s. Shetkari Seva Dugdhalaya situated at CTS No. 1586 in 'C' ward at Kolhapur. He paid his visit on 9th March, 1981 at about 3...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Panchaganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Bom)202; [2001]250ITR772(Bom)

S. H. Kapadia, J.1. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal dated October 26, 1999, the Department has come in appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The present matter is confined to the assessment year 1987-88 and assessment year 1990-91. By the impugned decision of the Tribunal, the addition of interest on non-refundable deposits came to be deleted on the ground that such interest did not constitute a trading receipt. Similarly, the Tribunal disallowed additions made on account of excess price of sugarcane being charged by the Karkhana. The Department took the view that the Karkhana had charged price of sugarcane in excess of the price statutorily fixed by the Government. Accordingly, the Department took the view that the excess price constituted trading receipt/income in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the Department hasmade additions to the income of the assessee which has been disallowed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the present appeal has been filed...

Mohd. Mubarak Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)MhLj360

P.S. Brahme, J.1. The petitioner Mohammad Mubarak s/o Mohammad Umar has approached this Court by way of this writ petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention dated 12-7-2000 passed by respondent No. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur invoking provisions under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act'). Along with the said order the detenu was served with the grounds of detention which was also dated 12-7-2000. The order of detention and the grounds of detentions have been annexed in the writ petition as Annexure No. 1. The State Government approved the order of detention on 12-7-2000 on 20-7-2000 vide Annexure 2. The order of detention came to be confirmed by the State Government on 18-8-2000 vide Annexure 3.2. It is revealed from the grounds of detention that the detention of the petitioner is founded on involvement of the petit...