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.
Cce Vs. Comet Tapes Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(102)LC883Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai-III. In view of the order is as granting modvat credit under Rule 57Q in respect of Tanks used for storing coal and mixture of adhesive material.2. In this case, the respondent assessee is manufacturing B.O.P.P.Tapes for manufacturing the final product. The assessee has to store mixture of the emulsion before producing the final product.3. They claimed modvat credit as they stored the excised goods in respect of such storage tanks. This was not granted by the Asst.Commissioner of C.Ex., Kalyan-I Dn. by the order of the Tribunal dated 8th February, 1999. This was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order. Against this order the Department has filed the instant appeals. One of the grounds of the appeal is eligibility of credit in respect of the storage tanks. The product should be recognised as excisable goods and should fall under the category of goods specified ag...
Golden Process Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT207Tri(Mum.)bai
1. At the outset when this matter was called, the ld. DR raised an objection that this appeal is against a letter No. V.Ch. 55 (30) 39/2001-M-III/3625, which has conveyed a message of rejection of the application made under ASP-1 to avail special procedure relating to processed textile fabrics by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III and it is not an order in adjudication. Therefore no appeal will lie to the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The ld. Consultant however submitted that a valuable right of the appellant to get the goods assessed, as prescribed under the law, has been denied by the proper officer, that is, the Commissioner, without granting them any hearing. No other order except the above mentioned order was issued and this may be taken as an order in adjudication, against which an appeal can be filed.3. We have considered the rival submissions and find that no doubt a valuable right of getting the goods assessed, in ...
Shantabai Surayakant Bankar Vs. Laxman Balk Madane and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR647; (2002)1BOMLR422; 2002(2)MhLj616
1. Writ Petition pertains to the year 1988 and ithas been taken on board for final hearing with dueintimation. Therefore, this petition is being heard anddecided finally treating the respondents exparte.2. Few facts need to be stated for understanding thematter in a better way. The petitioner happens to be thetenant of the suit land bearing Gut No.565, situated atvillage Madhve, Tal. Baramati, District Pune and thesuit land belonged to one late Balku Sadu Madane. Afterthe death of Balku Sadu Madane the present respondentsname were brought on record by mutation entry No.2925.The petitioner filed application before A.L.T. andTahasildar, Baramati on 12/11/1984 stating therein thatlate Shri Balku Sadu Madane had leased the suit land toher in the year 1973-74 and since then, she wascultivating the said land. His Tenancy was created aftertillers day, the provisions of section 32 of Tenancy Acthappened to be applicable and in view of that intimationwas given to landlord about tenants desire t...
Shri Agnelo Alexinho Lobo, Indian Inhabitant, Residing at House No. 67 ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR273
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioner was duly elected as a Memberof the Socorro Village Panchayat in the electionsheld on 12-1-1997 and, thereafter, on 14-2-1997 waselected as Sarpanch. Earlier also, the Petitionerhad held the post of Sarpanch. On 7-9-1998,Respondent No.1 served on the Petitioner a ShowCause Notice under Section 50(4) and 50(5) of theGoa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred toas the Panchayat Raj Act). On 16-12-1998, thePetitioner filed his reply to the Show Cause Noticecontesting the charges and allegations made therein.The matter proceeded before the 1st Respondent. On16-2-1999, after hearing parties the 1st Respondentdirected the Petitioner and thecomplainant/Respondent No.3 herein to file WrittenArguments on 3-3-1999. On 3-3-1999, thecomplainant/Respondent No.3 filed Written Arguments.On that date, on behalf of the Petitioner anapplication was filed seeking time to file WrittenArguments. Time was granted and the matter wasadjourned to 7-4-1999 for judgment and or...
Nausabai Balu Patil Vs. Smt. Kamal Chaugunda Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR768; (2002)1BOMLR787; 2002(2)MhLj440
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. On 18th November, 1987, the husband of the First Respondent mortgaged the suit land with Respondent No. 4 for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. Thereafter, the case of the Petitioner is that on 5th September, 1992, Respondent No. 4 created a tenancy in favour of the Petitioner of the suit land on the yearly rental payment of Rs. 700/-. On 5th September, 1997, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 issued a notice to the Fourth Respondent claiming redemption of the mortgage and delivery of possession of the land which is the subject matter thereof. Thereafter, a suit for redemption, out of which the present proceedings arise, came to be filed in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj. On 2nd March, 2001, the Petitioner claiming to be a tenant in respect of the land made an application for adding her as party defendant to the suit. That application was ...
Smt. P.N. Wankudre Vs. C.S. Wankudre and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom129; 2002(3)BomCR21; (2002)1BOMLR613
ORDERS.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The appeal from Order impugns the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Kolhapur dated 2nd May, 2001 dismissing two applications filed by the Appellant. The first application sought to restrain the Defendants from selling, leasing and creating any third party interest in a plot of land bearing C.T.S. No. 205/1 and 205/2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said plot') at Belgaum which is one of the suit properties. The second application sought an injunction restraining the Defendants from demolishing the existing property and developing the said plot. The reliefs claimed in the present Interlocutory proceedings are registered to the said plot.2. The Appellant is the original Plaintiff and the respondents are the original Defendants in the same order.3. At the outset it will be convenient to refer to the relationship between the parties. One Shripal was the husband of one Savitribai who expired on 24th April, 1989 and 31st March, 1987 respect...
Usha Badri Poonawalla Vs. K. Kurian Babu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom292; 2002(3)BomCR215; (2002)2BOMLR408; 2002(2)MhLj951
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The petitioner has filed a suit in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, being Special Civil Suit No. 915 of 1998 in which, based on the allegation that the defendant had defamed her, in a communication addressed to a Fellow Member of the Rotary Club, Pune, the petitioner has claimed damages in the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs. An application was moved by the Defendant claiming that the suit was liable to be dismissed for want of payment of the requisite Court fee. By the impugned order dated 17th April 2001, the Learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune has directed the petitioner to pay the Court fee on the claim of Rs. 50 lakhs.3. The dispute in the present case turns upon the construction of the Notification dated 1st October, 1994 issued by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 46 of the Bombay Cour...
K. Mohan and Co. (Exports) Vs. M.H. Vatnani, Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]126STC126(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners challenge notice dated August 4, 1987 issued under Section 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BST Act', for short), wherein the respondents have purported to reopen the assessment in respect of the turnover for the period from September 1, 1978 to August 31, 1979.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm duly registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 and, inter alia, carries on the business of manufacture, sale and export of garments and is a reseller of dyes and chemicals.3. For the abovesaid period from September 1, 1978 to August 31, 1979, the petitioners had filed their returns under the provisions of the BST Act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as 'the CST Act', for short) and the assessment under both the Acts were passed on March 29, 1982. In the assessment order under the CST Act (exhibit 'B' to the petition) sales by transfer of documents before the go...
Hemant Madhukar Patil Vs. Shakuntala Arvind Bramhabhatt and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC346; 2004ACJ872; 2002(2)ALLMR699; 2002(3)BomCR581
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. None present for the respondent No. 2, though served.2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order passed on 21st June, 1996 by Member, M.A.C.T. Thane in MAC No. 194 of 1990. By the impugned judgment the claim petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein has been allowed and the appellant and the respondent No. 3 have been ordered to pay the sum of Rs. 4,65,000/- as the compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on account of death of one Arvind Tribhuvandas Bramhabhatt, who was husband of the respondent No. 1 and son of respondent No. 2. The death had occurred in the accident involving the vehicle bearing No. MCY-3704 driven by the respondent No. 3 and owned by the appellant herein at the relevant time.3. The facts in brief are that the deceased Arvind was proceeding to Bhayandar on his motor-cycle in a normal speed when a lorry bearing No. MCY-3704 driven by...
Shivaji Pandhari Deshmukh and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR845
V.K. Barde, J.1. The four accused, who are convicted and sentenced by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 111 of 1995 have filed this Criminal Appeal against their conviction and sentence.2. The case of the prosecution is that Ramdas Bhagwan Farkande, being Doctor, wanted to start his dispensary at village Wakod, taluka Jamner, district Jalgaon. Therefore, an open plot belonging to Chandrabai was purchased. Adjacent to that plot, there is the house of accused Raidas. So, Atmaram, brother of Ramdas, requested Raidas that he should allow to pull down wall on one side of the house of Raidas for construction of new building for dispensary and Atmaram would reconstruct the wall of the house at his own costs. On the condition that Atmaram should reconstruct the wall at his own costs, Raidas gave permission to pull down the wall. Accordingly, the wall of the house was pulled down and construction was started.3. On 7.1.1995, when the construction of the wal...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »