Mumbai Court January 2002 Judgments
Sitaram Aba Patil Since Deceased by His Heirs and Legal Representative ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR644
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Respondent No. 2 has been served but she has remained absent and none is present for her and, therefore, this writ petition is being heard and decided treating her ex parte.2. Shri Karandikar vehemently argued and submitted that the M.R.T. was totally in error in respect of the facts and was in gross error in applying the law to the present set of facts and circumstances. He made reference to the judgments which have been passed by three forums below and submitted that a writ of certiorari needs to be granted in favour of the petitioners setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned member of M.R.T.3. Countering that Shri Thorat submitted that the learned member of M.R.T. rightly dismissed the revision application filed by the present petitioner. He pointed out that there was nothing on record to show that the present petitioner was ever the tenant of the said land. He submitted that the learned member of the M.R.T. has rightly appreciated the evidence on...
Tag this Judgment!Babaji Joma @ Babu Patil Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR794; 2002(3)BomCR504
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Admitted. Mr. Mhaispurkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on November 9, 2000, in First Appeal No. 236 of 1989. The said appeal was filed by the claimant-land owner. Proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the claimant. A reference was made which was decided by the District Judge, Raigarh. Dissatisfied with the Award made by the learned District Judge, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 106 of 1986, the claimants had approached this Court.3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal holding that the matter required reconsideration by the Reference Court. He...
Tag this Judgment!Shahnaz Javed Abdul Aziz Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)853; 2002CriLJ2242
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes herself as the wife of the detenu - Javed Abdul Aziz Shaikh alias Javed Munnlruddin Shaikh has impugned the order dated 31-10-2001 passed by the second respondent Ms. Ranjana Sinha, Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) (here-inafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act).The detention order, along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 31-10-2001 was served on the detenu on 2-11-2001 and their true copies are being annexed as Annexure-A and B respectively to the petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure-B) would show that on the basis of prior intelligence, officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I) interce...
Tag this Judgment!Jafar Ahmed Alias Jafar Fantoosh Mohamad Razzak Khan Vs. M.N. Singh an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)835; 2002CriLJ1723
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-detenu, has impugned the order dated 18th Sept. 2001 passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him 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), hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. ActThe detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 18th Sept. 2001, were served on the detenu on 27th Sept. 2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively to the writ petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned order is founded on one C.R. viz. C.R. No. 102/2001 under Sections 384, 387, 506(ii) IPC, registered on the basis of a complaint dated 7th May, 2001 lodged by Abdul Manan Abdul Kadar Shaikh, at...
Tag this Judgment!Haidery Tins Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT562Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants imported 327.961 M.T. of tin plate waste sheet and coil. On examination 127.24 metric tonne were found to be of prime quality. These goods were confiscated but were allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 3,00,000. The value was enhanced. Penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- was also imposed. Before the Tribunal the importers claimed that they had not been given an opportunity to be heard.Accepting this ground, the Tribunal remanded the matter for de novo consideration. The Commissioner in de novo proceedings accepted that out of the 17 coils claimed to be of prime quality, only 3 coils had been examined by the experts. He recorded that experts were not willing to come again for examination of other coils. The Commissioner referred to a letter dated 14-8-2000 from the experts to the effect that the result of the test of samples drawn from 3 coils could be extended to all the 17 coils. In this belief he confiscated the goods imposing fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a penalty...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Vs. State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2735
P.S. Brahme, J. 1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu has impugned detention order dated 11th September, 2001 passed by the second respondent- the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, under sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Amendment of 1996) (Maharashtra Act No. LV of 1981).2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention dated 11th September, 2001, was served on the detenu on 9/10/2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures I and II respectively to this writ petition.3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the petitioner though raised several grounds running from (A) to (T) in the petition, he pressed in service only one ground mentioned in para (I) of the petition.4. Ground I- The petitioner submits that the petitioner has been r...
Tag this Judgment!Union of IndiA. Vs. S.P. Goyal and State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)699; 2002CriLJ4146
1. Looking to the issue involved in this matter, itwas decided, by consent of the parties, that at thisstage itself the matter would be heard finally.Accordingly it was heard by me yesterday and today also.2. This appeal against acquittal is filed by theUnion of India through Commissioner of Customs, Mumbaiagainst S.P.Goyal, Director, M/s.Cannon Steel (Pvt) Ltd.Accused No.1 was acquitted by Additional ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai byhis order dated 30.4.2001 and the acquittal was underSection 174 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, theMagistrate also directed that the seized property bereturned back to the person from whom it has been takencharge of.3. Both these aspects of the impugned order viz. theorder of acquittal and the order of return of seizedproperty are challenged by the applicant.4. So far as second aspect is concerned, i.e. aboutreturn of seized property, the counsel for the applicantcontended that this order is passed without jurisdictionb...
Tag this Judgment!Vikram Reddy, Presently Lodged at Central Jail, Aguada, Sinquerim, Bar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)499; (2002)2BOMLR768
P.V. Hardas, J.1. The Appellant, who stands convicted for anoffence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) and 22 of theN.D.P.S. Act, 1985, and is sentenced to undergo RigorousImprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine ofRs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonmentfor one year on each count, has filed the present Appealchallenging his aforesaid conviction and sentence asrecorded by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa, byJudgment dated 26th December, 2000, in Special CriminalCase No.10 of 2000.2. The facts necessary for the decision of theAppeal are set out hereunder:-On 20th December, 1999, at about 5.00 p.m., twopanch witnesses P.W.3, Ashok Bhosle and one Shivnath Naik,both Government servants from the Office of the Directorof Agriculture were called to the Anti Narcotic CellPolice Station by P.W.6, P.I. Lavu Mamledar, by hisletter dated 20th December, 1999 addressed to the Directorof Agriculture, Panaji, Goa. The said two panch witnesseswere introduced by P.W.6, P.I. ...
Tag this Judgment!Century Rayon Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR207; 2002(84)ECC46; 2002(142)ELT319(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (Board for short) dated 7-4-1998 and consequent show cause notice dated 10-8-1998 alleging therein that the Petitioner No. 1 M/s. Century Rayon has wilfully suppressed the fact of manufacture of 'Cinder' with an intention to evade payment of excise duty (duty for short) and evaded duty to the tune of Rs. 12,39,350/- and why the same be not recovered from them with penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules for short) framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Act for short).FACTS IN BRIEF:The 1st petitioners herein are the Division of Century Textile Industries Ltd., a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of excisable goods, having its factory, inter alia, at Shahad, Taluka - Kalyan, Dist. Thane. The 2nd petitioner is the Vice President (Finance) of the first Petitioner/Company.3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Killick Caribonium Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(143)ELT491(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard parties.This petition is directed against the order dated (Ex. G.) (Page 42) passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Division, Bombay, dated 28th December 1987, whereby refund claim of Rs. 2,71,835.05 has not been granted to the petitioner on the ground that the appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) was pending before the Tribunal for adjudication on merits.2. The factual matrix is that the petitioners after having suffered order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector, Bombay, on 19th October 1984, whereby demands in the sum of Rs. 3,09,266.26 and Rs. 1254.42 were confirmed against the petitioners with direction to pay the said amounts within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order, the petitioners preferred appeal on 2nd January, 1985 before the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai. During the pendency of the said appeal, with a view to comply with the provisions of Section 35F of the Act, the petitioners deposited ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »