Mumbai Court December 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.
Siddhivinayak Sewa Mandal and ors. Vs. Smt. Shoba Sant and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)25; II(2003)BC567; 2003BomCR(Cri)550; 2003(2)MhLj311
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the complainant-Respondent No. 1. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. A complaint came to be filed by Respondent No. 1 against the present petitioners and one other under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. All the petitioners came to be convicted by judgment and order dated 15th January 2002 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. By the said order, the petitioners were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer S. I. for one month. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for two months. By the said order, all the petitioners were further directed to collectively pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant in view of the provisions of 357 of Criminal Procedure Code.3. The petitioners preferred criminal appeal No. 122 of 2001 against the judgment and order dated 15th January 2001 passed by the ...
Girish Ram Tripathi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Cus., Air
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(155)ELT231(Bom)
ORDERA.S. Aguiar, J.1. Heard Mr. A.P. Mundergi, learned Advocate for petitioner with Kiran Kanwal & R.K. Pathak and learned A.P.P. Mr. Adsule for respondent No. 2, Mr. R.F. Lambey for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. J.C. Satpute for respondent No. 3.2. This revision application is preferred from the order dated 29th October, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, in Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2001 filed against the order of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay, in Criminal Case No. 609/CW/1993 whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135 (1)(a) and 135 (1)(b) read with Section 135(1)(ii) and sentenced to suffer RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for 3 months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while confirming the said order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay, observed that on a concession made by the learned Counsel for customs that it was Section 135 (1)(ii) t...
Habitat Uk Limited (Formerly) Vs. Habitat India Private Limited and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(27)PTC11(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 3rd September, 1992 passed by the respondent No. 2. By the said order the respondent No. 2 dismissed the 12 opposition Nos. BOM, 7898, 7754, 7699, 7471, 7992, 7995, 7472, 7474, 7500, 7475, 7470 and 8098 filed by the petitioner and allowed the application Nos. 463274, 463275, 463280, 451912, 459932, 459931, 459928, 451908, 451901, 451910, 451911 and 459925 filed in various classes by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1's marks in all the applications consisted of the word HABITAT written in a stylized manner with the word INDIA written in small sized letters perpendicular to the word HABITAT. The said mark was proposed to be used on the date of the application.2. The case of the petitioner is that they are proprietor of the mark HABITAT used in relation to a wide range of products e.g. Furniture, furnishings, shelving, storage units, lighting, lamps, carpets, rugs, linoleum, wall paper, curtains, blinds, bathroom fit...
Mirza Kadir Baig Rasul Baig Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR672
A.B. Naik, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Collector, Parbhani, in File No. 2000-MVN-1-P-CR-5, dated 10-9-2002. In order to appreciate the points involved in this petition, following undisputed facts are required to be noted and appreciated.2. The petitioner-Mirza Kadir Beg s/o Rasul Beg was elected from zone No. 7-C of Jintoor City as a councillor of Municipal Council, Jintoor (hereinafter referred to as Council). It is also not disputed that the petitioner was one of the candidates who was sponsored by the Indian National Congress (I) Party (hereinafter referred to as 'the party'), a recognized party at State and National level. The elections were declared under the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. In the said elections, apart from the party, other recognized parties such as Nationalist (Congress) Party, B.J.P. and Shivsena, etc. also sponsored their respective candidates. I...
All India Customs Officers (Direct Recruit) Appraisers Association and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR965; 2003(4)BomCR328
V.G. Alshikar, J.1. By this petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 13-2-2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in exercise of its power under section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) initiating proceedings of the contempt of the Tribunal and directing framing of charges against the contemners mentioned in the order who are high placed officials of the Government of India.2. The entire dispute which originally started in the year 1977 is between the three cadres which form the eligibility cadres for promotion to a higher cadre. To put it in oft used language the fixation of quota for promotion in the promotional cadres from the three feeder cadres is the subject matter of the dispute. It would be necessary therefore to note in detail the facts giving rise to the controversy which has now given rise to contempt of Court proceedings.3. The petitioner No. 1 All India Customs Officers (Direct Recruit Appraisers) Associ...
Ankur Prathisthan and Sanshodhan Sanstha Through Its Secretary, Shri J ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR222; (2003)105BOMLR864
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution brings in question the order dated 20th April, 2002 issued by the Director of Social Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune granting permission in favour of the respondent No. 7 to run the Vrudha Ashram at Ambejogai and further seeks directions to consider the application of the petitioner for running the said Vrudha Ashram. The other reliefs are for directions to release an amount of Rs. 12,88,830/- and also the unpaid amount of grant-in-aid for the period from March, 2000 to June, 2002.2. Brief facts which are relevant, could be set out as under:The petitioner - Ankur Pratishthan Sanshodhan Sanstha, Ambejogai is a public trusts registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and some of its objects are to impart education and undertake social as well as cultural activities. The Government of Maharashtra had issued a resolution on 17th November, 1995 announcing a scheme for homes of aged citizens (V...
Bharat Vijay Iron Factory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT166Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 21,00,300/- confirmed against the importer M/s. Bharat Vijay Iron Factory and penalty of equal amount of duty imposed upon them, together with penalties of varying amounts imposed upon the remaining applicants who are registered dealers arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise. The main charge against the applicants is that there is no co-relation between the input purchased and the form in which the input reached the factory of M/s. Bharat Vijay Iron Factory.2. On hearing both sides and noting that in cases of confirmation of demands and imposition of penalties in identical cases, the Tribunal vide Order No. C-II/1592-1615/2002-WZB, dated 20-5-2002 has waived the pre-deposit of duty and penalties and stayed recovery thereof pending the appeals. The operative portion of the order is re-produced below : "We have considered the rival submissions. We are prima facie of the view that the problem has ari...
National Leathercloth Mfg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT672Tri(Mum.)bai
1. I have perused the record and considered the submissions by both sides.2. The appellants are the manufacturer of impregnated textile fabrics popularly known as rexin. The fabrics are packed in HDPE bags. The issue that arises for decision is whether the HDPE bags in question were eligible inputs for the purpose of Modvat credit in the context of exclusion contained at Serial No. 6 of Explanation to Rule 57A. This exclusion Clause may be read for ease of discussion.3. The appellants contend that the HDPE bags in question are produced directly from HDPE granules and are not produced from woven fabrics.This contention of the assessee was rejected by the order-in-original with the following observation at para 12. "Bag or Sacks of HDPE are normally produced out of strips or Tapes of HDPE. Virgin HDPE granules are covered in to strips or tapes and then woven into bags. Therefore, since these bags or sacks are made out of Strips or Tapes of plastic these are not eligible for Modvat credi...
Preet International Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT216Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides, we find that the appeal is capable of being decided. Hence after waiving pre-deposit of Rs. 2,60,328/- we proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The basic issue relates is whether the goods imported by the appellants and declared to be insole sheets for leather footwear were eligible to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 11/97 and entry at SI. No. 3 of list 3(A) of the Exim Policy, which covers insoles or midsoles and sheets therefor. It is the finding of the original authority that leather cloth imported by the appellants as seen from the report of the CLRI could not be used as insole sheet for making footwear.2. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants raised the plea that the adjudication order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner without hearing them. Although they had been heard by his predecessor, the Assistant Commissioner passed the order without hearing them. It was also claimed t...
Cce Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC838
1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. At the outset, the Counsel representing the respondents, submits that the Revenue's appeal with regard to the applicability of Rule 57 is not maintainable at all, inasmuch as this issue did not form part of show cause notice. The leaned Counsel refers to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Raphael Pharmaceutical Pvt.Ltd. v. Suptd. of Distilleries, 1988 (38) ELT 11 (A.P.) in support of his contention. He also points out that the Revenue's contention relating to the classification of waste of polyster staple fibre is not sustainable inasmuch as the issue remains settled in favour of the respondents under the decision of CEGAT in the case of Rajasthan Textile Mills v. CCE, Jaipur.3. I have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The show cause notice which initiated the proceeding did not raise the issue of applicability...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »