Mumbai Court February 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.
Lloyds Finance Ltd. Vs. Skg Solvex Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)570; 2002CriLJ2764
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Marwadi for the appellant. Appellant had filed a Complaint/Case before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act. The said complaint/Case came to be dismissed by the Magistrate on account of the absence of the complainant appellant on 24-10-2001 and hence this application for leave to appeal against acquittal.2. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Marwadi relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court (reported in : 1998CriLJ856 Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand) and Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code and contended that the accused had not appeared in the matter and therefore it was not obligatory upon the complainant to remain present because according to him matter could not have been posted for hearing unless the accused had appeared. Now the plea of the accused could have been recorded by the Magistrate unless the accused was present. The judgment of the Suprem...
Osman Ismail Bhaya Vs. Commissioner of Customs,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT545Tri(Mum.)bai
On hearing both sides on the application for early hearing, we find that the issue being small, the appeal itself could be disposed of.Both sides agreeing, this was done.1. Vessel MSV Kirti (VRL 295) was rummaged resulting in recovery of new garments totally valued at Rs. 45,60,000/-. After issue of SCN and hearing the concerned persons, the Commissioner of Customs, Gujarat confiscated these goods absolutely. He also confiscated crew baggage used to conceal the contraband but permitted its redemption on payment of fine. He imposed penalty on tindel and the crew of the vessel and also on the person who later claimed to be owner of the goods. The Commissioner in his order mentioned that the owner of the vessel Shri Bhaya had no knowledge of the contraband and that the statement of crew did not implicate him. He did not impose any penalty upon Shri Bhaya, but confiscated the vessel permitting its redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 2,50,000/-. This appeal has been filed by Shri Bhaya, t...
Flexible Packaging Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-v
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT410Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 1 lakh imposed as penalty. The duty of Rs. 1,96,359/- is voluntarily deposited.2. The department's charge is that the assessee purchased PVC films which was sold to their customers ostensibly after slitting, cutting, etc., whereas no such processes are undertaken in the factory. The department accepts that where the goods are purchased from the market no credit is taken. The charge is that the unutilised excess credit which would go waste is sought to be used in this modus operandi.3. On examination of the facts, I find that the appellant have an arguable case. Since the duty stands paid the pre-condition of deposit of the penalty is waived and its recovery stayed....
Pandb Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT453Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants were not present. Earlier also on a number of occasions they were not present even when notice was sent through the department. I, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal on merits on perusal of the submissions made in writing and on hearing Shri Shaikh, the learned DR.2. The assessees were availing of benefit of Notification 175/86 for certain goods and were also paying duty on certain pharmaceuticals under Notification 29/88. The demand of Rs. 1,08,745/- was made and confirmed and upheld on the ground that the value of clearances made under the other notification be added to the value of the total clearances to decide the value of first clearances under Notification 175/86 and when so done the short levy had arisen.3. Before the Collector (Appeals) the assessee claimed that the goods benefiting from Notification 29/88 were not "specified goods". Revenue counters this by reference to the annexure to the Notification 175/86-C.E. The Revenue states that except for the...
Sarva Udyog Kamgar Sangh. Vs. Jawahar Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ905Bom
Marlapalle, J.1. This petition, filed under Article 226 of theConstitution, brings in question the order passed undersection 36 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (the Act forshort) by the Government of Maharashtra on 6th December,1989.2. The petitioner claims to be the trade unionregistered under the Trade Unions Act and the employees ofthe respondent no.1 were its members. The respondent no.1is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 andit has its registered office at Nawkalp Society, GholeRoad, Pune - 411 004, with its manufacturing activities atShrirampur, District Ahmednagar. The factory at Shrirampuris a manufacturer of diesel engine pump sets and alliedproducts. The bonus issue covered by this petition is inrespect of the workmen/employees in the said factory atShrirampur.3. From the impugned order, it appears that on 15thApril, 1987, the respondent no.1 applied to the StateGovernment for exemption under section 36 of the Act forthe accounting year, 1985-86 and similar...
Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj689
ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the applicants, and Shri Dhote, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant.2. The present criminal application is moved by the applicants under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 22 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.3. Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the applicants, submits that the applicants are permanent residents of Ramtek, District Nagpur. The applicant No. 1 is dealing in business of travels and owns and possesses one Maruti Van bearing Registration No. MII-29/C-250. The applicant No. 2 is working as Driver with the applicant No. 1. The Maruti Van owned by the applicant No. 1 was hired by one Rajesh Roy for the purpose of going to Andhra Pradesh for his work and the said vehicle was returning back on 23-6-2001. On that day, Police officials of Pandharkawada Police Station, District Ya...
Shahnaz Begum Wd/O Syed Mushtaq Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR215; 2002(4)MhLj37
S.S. Parkar, J. 1. This is one more case of custodial death of an accused while in police custody. The petitioner, who is wife of the deceased aged 32 years and who died in police custody, has filed this writ petition seeking directions of this Court for thorough and detailed investigation by C.B.I, for the death during police custody and for payment of compensation to her and to her children which the deceased had left. 2. Deceased Syed Mushtaq was arrested on 30-10-1994 by the City Chowk Police, Aurangabad and found dead on the night between 8th and 9th November 1994 in the Kranti Chowk Police Station lock up in the city of Aurangabad. After his arrest, he was produced before the Magistrate on the following day i.e. 31-10-1994 and remand was obtained upto 14-11-1994. In the morning of 9th November 1994, it was noticed that the deceased was found tied to iron gate of the lock up cell by a shirt in standing position. During the course of 10 days when the deceased was in the police cust...
intelligence Officer, Dri Vs. Amjad HuseeIn Khan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(90)ECC906
G.D. Patil, J. 1. The present application has been preferred by the applicant-Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as DRI), for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 1 Amjad Hussein Khan by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay by order dated 30th May 2002 in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 122 of 2000. The learned Special Judge granted bail to the respondent No. 1 relying on two unreported judgments of this Court i.e. in Criminal Application No. 1788 of 2002 Smt. Hamidia Sayed Ali Shaikh v. N.C.B. and Ors. and Criminal Application No. 1816 of 2002 Mohamed Javed Haji Anwar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. The decision in Criminal Application No. 1788 of 2002 and Criminal Application No. 1816 is dated 16th May 2002. The learned Special Judge granted bail to the respondent/accused holding that statement of respondent-accused recorded under Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act which was confessional in nature was hit by Article 20(3) of the Const...
Shri Balkrishna @ Vilas Ramji Todakar Vs. Sou. Banabai Lahu Patil and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR629; (2003)105BOMLR716
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner is taking exception to the judgment and order passed by M.R.T. in the matter of Revision Application No. MRT. KP. 176 of 1983, dated 8.4.1988 whereby the learned Member of M.R.T. dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner by holding that the judgments and orders passed by Tahasildar and A.L.T. as well as by Assistant Collector were proper, correct and legal.2. Some facts need to be stated for unfolding the matter in controversy. Survey No. 200 admeasuring 3 Acres 33 gunthas situated in village Padal, Tal. Panhala, District Kolhapur happens to be the suit land. The petitioner Balkrishna @ Vilas Ramaji Todakar happens to be landlord. He was born, as the record shows, on 4.4.1946 and became major some times in the year 1964. The record shows that the suit land was leased some time in the year 1950. The respondents were the tenants of the suit land.3. The landlord contended that the suit land was leased for growing sugarcane. There was no ag...
Ashraf P. Nathani Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT592Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The instant appeal has been filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Hxcise (Appeals) Mumbai-III made in Order-in-Appeal No. YPP/47/M-111 /2001, dated 29-3-2001.2. The Appellant is the manufacturer of Biscuits falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 1905.11 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The preventive staff of the department observed that on scrutiny of actual stock of input certain quantities were found to be less as compared to the closing stock of R.G. 23A Part I Register. Further violations of Act and Rules were also noticed by the officers. A show cause notice dated 8-4-1994 was issued for violation of Rules 57-1 and 173Q of the Central Hxcise Rules. The show cause notice was stated to be not received by him. It would be mentioned that the applicant is the Director of the Assessee-Company. The assessee did not file written submission, hence the demand of duty was confirmed under Rule 57-1 of Central Excise Rules and ordered appropriation of the amount of R...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »