Mumbai Court January 2002 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 C. Ex. and Cus., Vs. Shree Radhey Textiles
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT91Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The common question for consideration in these 15 appeals by the Commissioner arises as follows. By amendment effective from 25-4-94, Notification 1/93 textured yarn became a commodity specified in the table to that notification. A manufacturer of such a commodity was entitled to the benefit of the exemption to that yarn contained in the notification. The notification divides the goods available to exemption to three slabs, describing the rate of duty for each. In the case of first clearance of the goods "up to aggregate value not exceeding 30 lakhs" there is complete exemption from duty if the manufacturer does not avail of Modvat credit; in the case of clearance of an aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs of these clearance, the duty is exempted on goods to the extent 10% ad valorem, otherwise payable. In that case of further clearance not exceeding Rs. 25 lakhs the exemption is to the extent of 5% of the duty otherwise payable. This is the duty payable if the manufacturer d...
Mrs. Gulshanbanoo R. Mukhi Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)83ITD649(Mum.)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee arise out of the order of the CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1996-97. Elaborate and argumentative grounds are raised, which, in effect raise the following grounds of appeal: (1) Challenging reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act. (2) The CIT(A) erred in upholding the Jt. CIT's order holding that the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 54 of the Act in respect of one flat only and thereby riot considering exemption for the investment made in another flat in the same building while computing the capital gains chargeable to tax. (3) The CIT(A) erred in passing an order of enhancement under Section 251(2) of the Act on the ground that the expenditure incurred by the assessee to bring the new flat in a habitable condition was not incredible in the cost of new flat and thereby disallowing the amount of Rs. 14,94,357. (4) The CIT(A) erred in passing an order of enhancement under Section 251(2) of the Act rejecting the valuation report...
Dilip Girdhar Chaudhari Vs. Nirabai Dilip Choudhari and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR848; (2002)3BOMLR379; 2002(1)MhLj7a
1. Present petitioner is the husband. Therespondent wife has filed Special Civil Suit No.169of 1997 for maintenance in the court of learnedCivil Judge S.D.Jalgaon on 9.3.2000. The learnedCivil Judge S.D. was pleased to allow the interimmaintenance in favour of the wife and daughter, atthe rate of Rs.500/- each. The interim maintenanceis ordered to be paid from the date of applicationi.e. 24.4.1997. Consequently an amount ofRs.57,000/- has become due by the end of January2002.2. On 22.1.2001, an application was filedon behalf of the petitioner pointing out that thedefendant has not complied with the order of interimmaintenance. Present petitioner filed say statingthat he has filed the revision petition before theHigh Court challenging the order of interimmaintenance and the revision was fixed for admissionhearing on 23.4.2001. On 8.3.2001, the learnedJudge passed an order directing the defendant toclear the arrears of interim maintenance as ordered,latest by 10th of April,2001. Said ord...
Anandrao Vs. Collector, Chandrapur,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR874; 2002(3)BomCR27; 2002(2)MhLj274
1. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The brief facts of the case are as under :-On 8.10.2001 the Managing Committee of respondent no.2 society sent respondent no.3 as its delegate to respondent no.4 specified society. Later on 23.10.2001 the respondent no.1 published a provisional voters list. On 30.10.2001, the Annual General Meeting of respondent no.2 society suggested the name of the present petitioner as its delegate to respondent no.4 society. On 31.10.2001 an objection was raised by the petitioner before Collector, Chandrapur i.e. respondent no.1 that his name should be taken as the delegate in place of respondent no.3. The Collector heard the petitioner on his application on 10.11.2001 and by his order dated 11.11.2001, he rejected the said objection.3. I have perused the order of the Collector. The rejection is made on the ground that the Resolution of the A.G.M. effecting the change in the delegation has been passed after the date of publication of the provisiona...
Ramakant Vs. Collector, Chandrapur,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR195
1. Advocate for the petitioner states that he will willing to delete respondent no.2 at his risk. Accordingly, respondent no.2, who has been served is allowed to be deleted.2. The matter is heard.3. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith.4. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition are as under :-On 15.10.2001 the Managing Committee of respondent no.2 primary society resolved to send petitioner as delegate on behalf of the primary society to respondent no.3 specified society . On 22.10.2001 the Collector, Chandrapur published a provisional list of voters. On 31.10.2001 an application was made by the petitioner to the Collector, Chandrapur i.e. respondent no.1, placing on record the passing of Resolution in his favour on 15.10.2001 and requesting that his name be included in the final list of voters. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Collector has acknowledged his letter dated 13.10.2001, which also enclosed a true copy of Resolution of the Management....
Pralhad Vithal Giri and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)608; 2002CriLJ3162; 2002(4)MhLj148
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. Criminal Application No. 1600 of 2001 under Section 482, read with Section 167(2), Criminal Procedure Code, is directed against the Order, dated 18-9-2001, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Risod, as well as the Order, dated 17-10-2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, whereby the application moved by the applicants for grant of bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code came to be dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Order of rejection came to be confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge.3. Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for the applicants, contended that the present applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Pooja, whowas alleged to have committed suicide by jumping into a well. The applicants came to be arrested on 16-7-2001. Offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code, i.e., abetment of suicide, punishable with impris...
Sumita Pradipkumar Dixit Vs. Pushpadevi G. Makharia and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR249
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai, has rejected by the impugned order dated 1st November, 2001, the application made by the petitioner for being impleaded as party defendant to a suit which is pending trial before the trial Court. The petitioner challenges that order. 2. A suit has been instituted by the first to fourth respondents in their capacities as trustees of a registered Public Charitable Trust against the fifth to seventh respondents. In the suit, the relief that is prayed for is that the defendants be ordered to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff-trust. The premises which form the subject matter of the suit, consist of Survey No. 41, situated at Mahabaleshwar in the District of Satara. On the said property which admeasures 162 sq.mts., a structure known as 'Shantiniketan' admeasuring about 162 sq.mtrs. consisting of 19 rooms is situated. According to the plaintiffs, by an agreement dated 21st Octob...
Videocon International Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: 2005(182)ELT317(Bom)
ORDER1. Heard parties.2. Since the petitioners were not allowed to export the goods, they were compelled to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing this petition. At the time of granting Rule, interim relief was also granted in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners were allowed to export goods by furnishing bank guarantee to the extent of duty payable on the export the goods within 36 hours of furnishing the bank guarantee. The petitioners were further Ordered to keep the bank guarantee alive till the disposal of this petition and six months thereafter. The respondents and their officers were also granted liberty to adjudicate upon the transaction, if necessary, to initiate action against the petitioners or M/s. Dhoot Trading Co. for contravention of law, if any.3. This petition was filed in this Court in the year 1988. In spite of lapse of more than 12 years, no attempt was made by the respondents to file return and/or affidavit in reply.4. At this juncture it would not ...
Ramdas, Vs. Karuji,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR20
1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties.2. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.3. This is a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.7.2001 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Gadchiroli, by which, while deciding two applications under Section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, filed by opposing parties, he has chosen to give a direction appointing an ad hoc committee to manage and administer the trust (Bouddha Mahasabha Korchi, District - Gadchiroli), which is a duly registered Trust.4. I have seen the prayers in both the applications under Section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, being Application Nos. 120 of 2001 and 121 of 2001. In neither of these applications, there is any prayer for direction of appointment of an ad hoc committee. Apart from this, on a plain reading of Section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, it is evident that the Charity Commissioner can only issue directions to any trustee of a Public Trust or any pers...
Sudhakar Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)161
1. The petitioner, Mr. Sudhakar ShankarraoSuradkar, Special Inspector General of Police,Aurangabad Range, Aurangabad, has moved this writpetition against the four respondents, includingrespondent No. 3, Mr. U. D. Joshi, SpecialInspector General of Police, S.C.R.B., C.I.D.(Crime), M.S., Pune, which is styled as under Articles14, 21, 215 and 227 of the Constitution of India andSection 397 read with 401 and 482 of the CriminalProcedure Code, but necessarily aimed against theimpugned order dated 10th April 2001 passed by theJudicial Magistrate, First Class, (A.C.) Court, Pune,wherein he accepted the report filed by InvestigatingOfficer Mr. R. B. Korde, Additional Superintendentof Police, C.I.D. (Crime), M.S., Pune under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafterreferred to as the said Special Act), and granted therequest for sanction of C Summary in respect of thecomplaint filed by the petitioner under the saidSpecial Act agai...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »