Mumbai Court October 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.
Dr. Rajaram S/O Vitthal Patil and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR119
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. The petitioners No. 1 and 3 are holding a degree of B.S.A.M. (Bachelor of Ayurved in Medicine and Surgery). The petitioner No. 2 is holding a degree of A.V.M.S. (Ayurvedic Vigyanacharya with Modern Medicine and Surgery). They are all registered under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 read with Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. On the basis of the said qualifications, the petitioners were appointed on 28.8.1980, 21.4.1979 and 28.8.1980 respectively as Medical Officers (Health)Class-III at various Primary Health Centers/dispensaries run by the Zilla Parishad, Dhule.2. The qualifications of the petitioners are included in the Second Schedule of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. Section 17(3A) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 provides that :Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force. every person enrolled on the register maintained under the Indian Medicine Central ...
Amartaara Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Bom)199
S.H. Kapadia, J.This reference is made by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the behest of the assessee. It concerns assessment year 1978-79, corresponding to the previous year ending 31-8-1977. Accordingly, the following question of law has been referred to the High Court under section 256(1) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that ad hoc compensation received by the assessee from the insurance company was taxable as income for the assessment year 1978-79 ?'Facts2. The assessee Amartaara Ltd. is a public limited company. The assessee, along with two other companies, as associate companies, had taken out five (5) policies of insurance under which loss or damage by fire to their buildings, plant and machinery, stock-in-trade, etc., was covered. On 15-8-1976, there was a fire in the factory of the assessee and the building, machinery and stock-in-trade were destroyed. On 19-8-1976, the insurance c...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dipen Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT632Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeals of the Revenue against adjudication orders of Commissioner of Customs by which rough marble blocks imported by different respondents have been confiscated with option to redeem the goods on payment of different amounts of fine and penalties imposed involve a common issue for determination, namely, that of appropriate quantum of fine and penalty, and hence heard together and disposed off by this common order.2. Details of the appeals are as per annexure to this order. Imports in this batch of appeals cover the period prior to 1-4-1999 up to the period subsequent to 1-4-2001. Prior to 1-4-1999 import of rough marble blocks was restricted; from 1-4-1999 import was permitted provided the CIF value was US $ 300 PMT and subject to import licence for three times value was produced by the importer; from 1-4-2000 import was permitted as above but SIL for five times of the CIF value was required to be produced; from 1-4-2001 onwards import of rough marble blocks is once aga...
S.P.S. Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ150CAT
1. By this application, the applicant, who belongs to Indian Police Service, has challenged his repatriation to his parent cadre viz.Government of Maharashtra, from the post of Chief Vigilance Officer of Air India Limited at Mumbai, a Public Sector Undertaking owned and controlled by the Government of India.2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed on deputation as Chief Vigilance Officer of Air India Limited, Mumbai by letter dated 29.11.2000. On 13.2.2001, the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, issued another letter in respect of terms and conditions for appointment on deputation. By said letter the term of deputation provided was that initially it is for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge i.e. 8.12.2000 (FN) or until further orders whichever is earlier. Though the appointment of the applicant was for a period of three years but by letter dated 20.6.2002, the Ministry of Civil Aviation directed his premature repatriation a...
Rambhau Fakiraji Pannase Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1547; 2003(1)MhLj526
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gavai, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court acquitted the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The State preferred an appeal against acquittal in this court and this court allowed the said appeal of the State and set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000-00. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that pursuant to the above referred judgment of this court, the petitioner was sent to Central Prison, Nagpur, on 22-9-1993. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of this court, filed an appeal before the Supreme Cou...
Jayant Dyes and Chemical Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, (Adm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)MhLj784; [2004]136STC250(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. This group of petitions involves common question as to whether, in view of the subsequent judgment of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal for the subsequent assessment years, wherein it was held that the activity of reducing the strength of dyes did not amount to 'manufacture', the petitioners are entitled to claim refund from the respondents in respect of earlier assessments which had attained finality.2. The facts giving rise to these petitions being, common the same are drawn from Writ Petition No. 2962 of 1988 for the sake of clarity.FACTS 3. The petitioners are M/s. Jayant Dyes and Chemical Co., the partnership firm registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('Act' for short). The petitioners deal in dyes. Dyes are reduced in strength according to the requirements of the customers. The petitioners were treating the said process of reduction of strength of dyes as process of manufacturing and were paying due taxes, treating themselves as manufacturers so far as ...
Jalgaon District Fertilisers, Pesticides and Seeds Dealers Association ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MhLj560
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner is an association of dealers in fertilizers, pesticides and seeds in Jalgaon district and it is registered under Registration No. F-698 (Jalgaon). It has taken exception to the communication dated 22nd March, 1999 addressed by the State Government to the Commissioner for Agriculture at Pune. It states that the licences for sale/import of seeds should be granted to Diploma/Degree holders in Agriculture or to the firms which employ such qualified persons. This condition is also applicable for renewal of licence and is based on the circular issued by the State Government on 4th of May, 1998.2. Shri Bafna, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the State Govt. cannot abrogate itself the powers of the Central Government and it is the Central Government alone which can impose such conditions as the Seeds Act, 1966 has been enacted by the Parliament.3. Admittedly, the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 has been issued by the Central Gov...
Sambhaji Manaji Chate and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MhLj661
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. Heard both sides.2. It is stated by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners are agriculturists and are owners of land G. Nos. 1243, 1244 and 1297 situated at village Khapertone. The Government acquired the petitioners' land to the extent of 96 acres for the purpose of percolation tank in 1987. In the said case, award came to be passed on 11-1-1991. The petitioners accepted the payment of compensation for their land on 18-3-1991 under protest as the compensation awarded was only @ of Rs. 125/- per are. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the respondent No. 2, the petitioners filed an application for Reference before the respondent No. 2 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for getting enhanced compensation. It is stated in the said application that the petitioners got very meager amount of compensation. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 2 did not consider the sale instances of the adjoining lands while granti...
Suresh D. Zamakade Vs. Narayandas V. Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR312; 2003(2)BomCR830
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. The above numbered civil application is allowed by consent. Since heirs of deceased respondent No. 4 are already mentioned in the cause title, no further amendment is necessary.2. Rule in writ petition. Mr. Anturkar waives notice for all the respondents. Petition heard for final disposal forthwith, by consent.3. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and decree passed by Shri U.N. Dikkatwar, 4th Additional District Judge, Satara dated 31-7-2002 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 209/2000.4. The respondents filed suit for possession of the suit premises on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act before the Civil Judge, J.D., Satara being R.C.S. No. 766 of 1966. The trial Court after considering the relevant materials on record and considering the rival contentions was pleased to dismiss the suit. The respondents carried the matter in appeal before the District Court being Regular Civil Appeal No. 209 of ...
Shyam Sunder Arya Vs. G.E. Vahanvati, Advocate General of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR453
R.M. Lodha, J.1. On 5th July, 2002 the petitioner made an application to the Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra for his consent to file a criminal contempt petition before this Court. The petitioner also forwarded draft of contempt petition. The Advocate General declined to grant consent and a communication to that effect was sent to the petitioner. The said communication dated July 8, 2002 reads thus:--- 'GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA (SEAL) No. AG/282/021st Floor, Chamber No. 5,G.E. VAHANVATI, High Court Extension Bld. ADVOCATE GENERAL Mumbai 400 032.July 08, 2002To, Mr. Sham Sunder Arya,Chief General Secretary,Samajwadi Party, Mumbai.Sub: Sanction for filing petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court for criminal contempt.Dear Mr. Arya,This refers to your application dated July 5, 2002 for sanction for filing petition in the Bombay High Court in terms of the draft submitted to me. I note from the draft that the statements alleged to constitute contempt are said to have been...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »