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.
Sadaram Thaganlal Turkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR87; 2003(3)MhLj231
A.P. Shah, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Village Development Officer in the Zilla Parishad, Bhandara. Initially the petitioner was posted at Panchayat Samiti, Arjuni (Morgaon), Dist. Bhandara. Thereafter he was transferred to Panchayat Samiti, Gondia with effect from 2-12-1991. On 18-11-1998 the petitioner was promoted as Extension Officer (Panchayat) and posted at Panchayat Samiti, Pauni, Dist. Bhandara. Under the relevant rules petitioner's services were transferable within Bhandara District only. On 1-5-1999 Bhandara district was bifurcated into two districts namely Bhandara and Gondia. Accordingly Zilla Parishad of Bhandara was also bifurcated into two Zilla Parishads namely Bhandara Zilla Parishad and Gondia Zilla Parishad. In view of the bifurcation of the Zilla Parishad, options were called from the employees about their willingness to serve in the Zilla Parishad of their choice. According...
Vinod Pandurang Bharsakade Vs. Returning Officer and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj359
C. K. Thakker, C.J. 1. A common question of law has been raised inall the petitions. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present group ofpetitions, few relevant facts in the first petition may be noted.2. The petitioner of the first petition (Writ Petition No. 4060 of 2002) hasapproached this court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside an order datedNovember 8, 2002 (Annexure-6) by which respondent No. 1, Returning officer,Balegoan, Tal. Akot, rejected the nomination form of the petitioner.3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a bona fide resident of villageBalegaon, Tal. Akot, District Akola since his birth. Village Balegaon has anindependent gram panchayat consisting of three wards. The petitioner has twobrothers, Devidas and Vilas. All the three brothers, however, reside separately intheir respective houses. The petitioner's elder brother Devidas owns and residesin a house bearing No. 24, his...
Janardhan Appa S/O Martand Appa Bondre Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR231; 2003(4)BomCR787; 2003(3)MhLj379
R.G. Deshpande, J. 1. This petition raises an important question pertaining to the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, precisely relating to the provisions of Sections 126 and 127 of the M. R. T. P. Act. If for 10 years from the date of final publication of the Development Plan, the land reserved is not acquired by acquiring body or the authority for which it is to be acquired but before issuance of the Notice under Section 127 of the M. R. T. P. Act by the owners, some steps are taken by the acquiring body which thereafter are continued, whether in such a case could be it said that the reservation is lapsed in accordance with the provisions of that Act.2. The facts, in short, necessary can be narrated as under : In the year 1977, Survey No. 114, area 0.93 hectare of mouza Chikhali belonging to the petitioners and their brothers and sisters, was reserved for the purposes of Agricultural Produce Market...
Dipankar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)70; 2003CriLJ3271
S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard Shri Chattarjee, Advocate for the applicant and Shri Dhote, A.P.P., for the Respondent.2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Code) for quashing the criminal prosecution against the applicants inter alia first information report dated 17th January, 1997 in Crime No. 2 of 1997 and for setting aside the order passed by the 9th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, who refused to stop the proceedings under Section 258 of Code.3. Mr. Chattarji, the learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants are well-famed Astrologers and Astro-Palmists and have made a name in the said profession. The applicants Nos. 1 to 3 are Astrologers and Astro-palmist, applicant No. 4 runs a business of Gems under the name and style of Ratnamela. The applicants Nos. 5 and 6 are the servants of applicant No. 4. The applicants visited Nagpur in between 14-1-1997 and 18-1-1997 and took up residence and office at Sahakar Mandir...
Maharashtra Overseas Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(108)LC151Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants imported goods described as "22.210 MTs of Acrylic Plastic Sheet Offcuts." The value declared was US$ 450 PMT (CIF).Examination indicated that while 5.3. MTs were offcuts, 17 MTs consisted of sheets. In reply to queries the importers claimed that the goods were defective on account of thickness variation, colour fade etc. They also claimed that the term offcuts applied where a sheet was cut from any size. The importers waived issue of show cause notice but were heard by the Jt. Commissioner. He rejected the claim that the goods were offcuts holding that they were regularly sized sheets. On this ground he held the goods to be liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. He observed that similar goods namely non-prime acrylic sheets were earlier assessed at US$ 850 PMT CIF. He enhanced the valuation of 17 MTs of the imported lot and confirmed differential duty on enhanced valuation of Rs. 1,83,389/-. He confiscated the goods but allowed their r...
Ridham Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(108)LC150Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After waiving deposit, we take up the appeal E/2774/02 for disposal.We also take up, with consent, Commissioner's appeals (E/810, 1650, 1824, 2188, 2189, 954, 2264, 2818/02) for disposal, along with other appeals which have been listed to day.2. The common question for consideration on these appeals is whether the length of the galleries which form part of the stenter installed in the premises of each of the assessees who are processors of textile fabrics should, for the period prior to 1.3.2002, be taken into account in determining the capacity of the chambers of the stenter.3. This matter had been considered by the Supreme Court (in civil appeal 4972 of 2001 amongst others) filed by the department against the decision of the Tribunal in CCE v. S.P.B.L. Ltd and other decisions.The Court has approved the reasoning of the Tribunal relied upon in the orders impugned before us, that the explanation contained in the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determi...
True Care Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT305Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing the party on the stay application, we have decided to take up the appeal itself after waiving deposit, 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products, some of which it clears for home consumption, the rest being exported. It availed of the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification 16/97. It also availed of the Modvat procedure. The appellant filed a claim for refund of the Modvat credit amount accrued in respect of the duty paid on the inputs that it utilised in the manufacture of the exported product. Such credit is entitled to be refunded in terms of Sub-rule (13) of Rule 57F, if the credit cannot be utilised towards payment of duty on similar products cleared for home consumption. The Deputy Commissioner having been satisfied that the appellant was not in a position to utilise the credit in this manner, sanctioned the refund.3. The department appealed this order to the Commissioner (Appeals), contending that the manufacturer was ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Winners
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1147Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has found that the speakers of the kind imported by the respondent required an import licence, which was not produced. He has however noted that the requirement arose as a result of amendment made to the import policy which came into effect from 25-3-1996, and that the goods in question were loaded on board the vessel which carried them to India on 3-3-1996 before this date. He has also found that prior to 25-3-1996, there was a regular practice of clearing such goods both by the Mumbai Customs House and by the Nhava Sheva Customs House. He has therefore held that although, in law, the speakers were liable to confiscation, the facts of the case warrants leniency and allow the import on a caution.2. The only contention in the department's appeal is that the fact that earlier consignments were cleared without fine does not justify clearing this consignment without a fine. We do not find it possible to accept this contention. If a ...
Gopala Polyplast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT121Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides for some time we found that it was possible to dispose of the appeal itself as the issue in dispute is covered by earlier orders of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee; hence after waiving the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 18,10,331/- and penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs, we proceed to decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants herein manufactured HDPE Strips/Tapes falling under sub-heading No. 3920.32, Labels and Badges falling under Chapter 5807.00 and availed modvat credit of duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A and capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The dispute in the present case relates to availment of credit on capital goods namely label weaving loom/machines and its spares and accessories used for the weaving of labels and badges falling under Chapter No.5807.00 which are chargeable to nil rate of duty under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is the case of the department that on an application of...
Mrs. Vaishali W/O Manish Manekar Vs. Manish S/O Motiram Manekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR649; 2003(4)BomCR693; 2003(3)MhLj171
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard Shri Deshpande, Advocate for thepetitioner and Shri Vishwarupe, Advocate for therespondent.2.Rule. By consent, rule is made returnableforthwith.3.This is a writ petition challenging an orderdated 17.9.2002 passed by the Principal Judge, FamilyCourt, Nagpur, below Exh. 13 in Petition No.A-144/2002.The main petition has been filed by the respondenthusband for restitution of conjugal rights. The partieswere married on 22.7.1999. It is not in dispute thatafter marriage, the husband and wife came to reside atthe residence of the father of the respondent at Nagpur.The respondent was residing there for short time till27.7.1999, on which date he left for United States ofAmerica to pursue his career. The wife stayed at herparents house till 24.8.1999, after that she left forU.S.A. to join her husband. The wife returned on22.9.2000 for Diwali vacation and husband also returnedfor vacation on 11.10.2000. Thereafter, for a few days,they were residing at the parental place o...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »