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.
Shyam Sunder Arya Vs. G.E. Vahanvati and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR190; 2003CriLJ2988
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 No. AG/282/02MAHARASHTRA 1st Floor, Cham-(SEAL) ber No. 5, HighG. E. VAHANVATI, Court ExtensionADVOCATE GENERAL Bid, MumbaiJuly 8, 2002 400 032To.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 bee...
Alka Prasanna Gosavi Vs. Prasanna Parvanath Gosavi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1; I(2003)DMC552
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both the applications, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. From the facts disclosed in the Misc. Civil Application No. 90 of 2002, which are not controverted by the respondent, the petitioner has made out a case for transfer of the proceedings from the Nasik Court to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. As fairly conceded by the learned Advocate for the applicant, consequent to such transfer the respondent would certainly be entitled for travelling expenses bearing in mind the decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha v. Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha and Ors., reported in : [1997]1SCR214 .3. It is also pertinent to note that the proceedings initiated by the applicant in Misc. Civil Application No. 90 of 2002 in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai were prior in time to the proceedings initiated by the...
Sou. Bharti, W/O Mohan Thakkar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)97; 2003CriLJ2583
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The appellants had been tried for various offences of counterfeiting currency notes under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D, 489-E and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. By this appeal, the appellants challenge their conviction and substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed by the trial Court.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14-11-1998 accused/appellant No. 1-Bharti had gone to Sakkardara Market for shopping and in the process of shopping at different places, she purchased certain articles and gave counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500 as also Rs. 50. It appears that appellant No. 1-Bharti was detained in the market by the public and it was being said that appellant No. 1 -Bharti was possessing fake currency notes. In the meantime, police had been informed and the police party headed by PSI Sapkale arrived there. In the presence of panchas, the search of the appellant No. 1-Bharti was conducted and on her search, c...
Mukundbhai D. Rathod Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT320Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility of the exemption contained in entry 4 of the table to Notification 223/88 to the forgings and forged articles of alloy steel that the appellant manufactured and cleared.2. The entry exempts from duty forgings and forged articles of steel (other than stainless steel) classifiable in any heading or sub-heading or Chapters 72, 73, 85, 86 or 87 of the tariff. The exemption has been denied on the ground that the forgings and forged articles that the appellant manufactured being of alloy steel, were not such articles of steel as mentioned in the notification.3. It is difficult to comprehend this object. Chapter 72 of the tariff which is concerned with iron and steel defines steel, stainless steel and other alloy steel as follows :- Ferrous materials other than those of Heading No. 72.03 which (with the exception of certain types produced in the form of castings) are usefully malleable and which contain by weight 2% or less ...
Cc Vs. Ingersoll-rand (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)(107)LC59Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The common question for consideration in these appeals is the classification of the goods described as "set of springs and channel" imported by Ingersoll-Rand (I) Ltd. In the order impugned in the appeal C/22/96, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the classification of the goods as parts of compressors in heading 84.14 of the Customs tariff and in the order impugned in appeal C/420/97, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held the goods to be classifiable as springs in heading 7320.93.2. The classification of these goods consisting of one channel and one spring each has already been decided. In its decision in Ingersoll-Rand (1) Ltd. v. CC 1999 (30) RLT 246 : 1999 (82) ECR 358 (T), the Tribunal has confirmed the classification of these goods in heading 84.14. The ratio of this decision has been followed in the unreported decision of the Tribunal in Ingersoll-Rand (I) Ltd. v. CC (appeal C/505/96 by the same importer). The departmental representative is unable to advance any argument...
In Re: Hindustan Dorr-oliver Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR465; [2005]127CompCas484(Bom); (2003)2CompLJ190(Bom); 2003(3)MhLj900
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The Petition seeks the Court's sanction to the scheme of arrangement between the Petitioner and its equity shareholders as modified. The Petitioners have also sought permission to amend certain provisions of the scheme. 2. The Petitioner was incorporated on 26th July, 1974. As on 31st March, 2001, the authorized share capital of the Petitioners was Rs. 10,00,00,000 (Rupees ten crores) divided into 1,00,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The issue, subscribed and paid-up shares capital is Rs. 4,75,20,000 divided into 47,52,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each.The shareholding pattern is as follows:No. of Equity Shares heldNo. of Share holders 96 of Share holders No. of Shares held % of Share holding 1 to 50349135.261,25,8322.6551 to 100285228.812,61,0075.49101 to200273927.664,81,68710.14201 to5005986.042,08,1044.38501 to10001551.561,07,7882.271001to 5000570.5794,1871.985001& above90.0934,73,35573.09Total9901100.0047,52,000100.003. The Petitioner's Board of Directors pr...
National Heavy Engg. Co-operative Ltd. Vs. Shirke Structural (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR283; [2003]43SCL538(Bom)
ORDERD.G. Karnik, J. 1. Heard Shri Sawant for the applicant and Shri Naik for the respondent No. 1.2. In a pending suit, being Spl. Civil Suit No. 1378 of 1996 Shri B.S. Patil B.E. (Civil) L.L.B., F.I.E, was appointed as an arbitrator by the Learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Pune to arbitrate about the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. In this Civil Revision Application, an exception to the appointment of Shri B.S. Patil as an arbitrator is taken by the applicant on two grounds viz. CO the arbitrator could not be appointed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division and the power of appointment vests with the Hon'ble Chief Justice of his nominee under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (if) Shri B.S. Patil, m the past was working as legal adviser of Shrike Group of Companies of which the present respondent No. 1 forms a part. It was also contended that Shri B.S. Patil has also acted as an arbitrator appointed by one or the other of the Shrike Group of C...
Haribhau Bhika Kumkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)MhLj38
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Shri Shelke, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleaders for the respondents.Rule. The learned Assistant Government Pleaders waive service for the respondents. Rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. All these petitions raise a common issue i.e. restoration of unutilised land acquired for the rehabilitation of the project affected persons on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 10-10-1973 as it has not been utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired since last more than 27 years and, therefore, they are being decided by a common judgment.3. Some portion of the agricultural land belonging to the petitioners was acquired by the State Government for rehabilitation of the persons affected by the Adhala Irrigation Project and the award came to be passed on 10th March, 1977. The area of the land acquired from each of the petitioners i...
Tarun Shah and anr. Vs. Ramjisingh Bhullansingh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR172; 2003(2)BomCR643
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Abhyankar for the appellants. This Letters Patent Appeal seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of a Division Bench of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order passed by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition invoking his jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original proceedings were filed in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai under the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and the order thereunder was challenged in Writ Petition No. 5946 of 1988, reported in Ramjisingh Bhuliansingh v. Tarun K. Shah, : 2002(6)BomCR63 , by the respondent herein invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Such petitions are assignable to a Single Judge under the Appellate Side Rules and that is how the learned Single Judge heard and decided the matter and passed the order on 12th June, 2002. That order is sought to be challenged by invoking Clause 15 of the Letters Patent...
Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT729Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Appellants against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV, made in Order-in-Original No. 6 of 1999, dated 20-9-1999 whereunder he has classified "UNSTERILISED ABSORBABLE CATGUT SUTURES" manufactured by the Appellant classifiable under Chapter subheading 4201.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and confirmed the demand to the extent of duty payable on the said goods for the period 30-11-1998 to 31-3-1999. The order also stated that the duty amount would be quantified by the department and the amount so quantified was intimated in writing to the appellant before 22-9-1999 and the order further directed payment of the same by the assessee forthwith.2. The appellant has a manufacturing unit at Dharavi, Mumbai where it undertakes manufacture and clearance of a single product namely UNSTERILISED ABSORBABLE CATGUT SUTURES. It is an undisputed position that the product as cleared by the appellants is inevitably used in the manufacture o...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »