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.
Pramod Ganpat Wankhede and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)583; (2002)3BOMLR182; 2002CriLJ4835; 2002(83)ECC529; 2002(2)MhLj547
P.S. Brahme, J. 1. Heard Shri V. M. Deshpande, learned advocate for the applicants appointed as amicus curiae and Shri T. B. Mirza, learned A. P. P. for respondent- State.2. This matter has come up before us as a reference from the learned Single Judge (Shri Mhase, J.) by his order passed on 24-6-1997 to answer the question formulated by him as under:'Whether the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act are not attracted in the matters of bail applications filed by the accused when the offence punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act is with the imprisonment which may extent to a period of five years?'3. The factual matrix which gave rise to a controversy on account of two conflicting judgments in respect of interpretation of Section 20(b)(i) and Section 37(l)(b) which is stated as follows :According to the prosecution case, the Assistant Police Inspector, Yavatmal on 18-2-1997, accosted one Fiat Car bearing No. MHR - 3840 came from Pandharkawda Road and when search was taken four b...
Bandu Yedu Metkari Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)746; (2002)2BOMLR492; 2002(2)MhLj867
R.K. Batta, J. 1. The appellant was tried for murder of Prakash Narayan Padavale under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as also for causing injuries on Mainabai under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had in fact examined 9 witnesses in support of the said charges. By impugned judgment dated 31st December, 1998 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, has convicted the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him imprisonment for life. The appellant was also convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo 3 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 7 days. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant challenges his conviction in this Appeal.2. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged by the appellant himself. The incident is reported to have taken place at 9.00 p.m. on 2nd July, 1998 and the appellant lodged the F....
Oil and Natural Gas Commission of India Vs. Municipal Corporation of G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom231; 2002(3)ALLMR456; 2002(3)BomCR489
P.S. Patankar, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying to restrain the respondents from levying octroi duty on Natural Gas under Entry 22(a) of Schedule 'H' of Octroi Rules 1965 and, further directing the respondents to withdraw the Demand Notice dated 13-5-1989 of Rs. 15,85,01,902.27 for the period from 1978-79 to 31-12-1987 and further direction not to recover octroi duty on 'Natural Gas' from December, 1978.2. The petitioner is carrying on the activities of exploration and exploration of oil resources from Bombay High. It includes natural gas. Respondent No 1 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (now Mumbai) (for short, B.M.C. ). Respondent No. 1 by a letter dated 27th March. 1985 brought to the notice of the petitioner that 'natural gas' is similar to L.P.G. and is capable of being used as fuel and is actually used as a fuel and, therefore, chargeable for octroi duty under Entry 22(a) of Schedule 'H'. The respo...
Citibank N.A. Vs. S.K. Ojha and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Bom)124; [2002]257ITR663(Bom)
1. Heard both sides at length. Perused the petition, affidavit-in-reply and the rejoinder tendered today in court on behalf of the petitioner.2. The petitioner by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is praying to quash and set aside the notice dated March 17, 2000, issued by respondent No. 1 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The said notice alleges that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1991-92 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. The petitioner is a body corporate incorporated in the United States of America and carries on banking business in India.4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment in the relevant assessment year. He has further contended that all primary facts were disclosed by the petitioner in the return and the ...
General Labour Union and anr. Vs. Arjandas Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ489Bom
J.A. Patil, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition, alleging that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order dated April 18, 2000 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 610/2000 and thereby committed contempt of the Court. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered Trade Union, representing the employees in respondent No. 1 factory. Respondent No. 1 is a private limited company, engaged in the manufacture of non-ferrous metals. Respondent No. 2 is the Managing Director of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 is the wife of respondent No. 2 and also a Director of respondent No. 1. It appears that there was a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as MOU for short) between the parties on September 24, 1989 and April 29, 1999 as per which the respondents were liable to pay to 67 workers working in tbe factory their earned wages and also give certain other benefits. The respondents, however, failed to give benefits of both the MOUs to their workers. Hence, the petitioner union ...
Ramshankar Manmohanlal Pande Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR645
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged certain actions, including the action of acquisition of land by the Nagpur Improvement Trust on the ground mentioned in the petition. Identical petitions are filed by 14 more persons by nine more writ petitions. All of them complain of the same set of circumstances and raise identical questions of fact and law. In fact, all these petitions arise from out of one improvement scheme framed by the N.I.T., execution and implementation of which is assailed in all these petitions. The details of other petitions are mentioned in the schedule attached to this judgment, which will form part and parcel of this judgment. Since all these petitions raised identical questions of fact and law, all concerned parties agreed that all these petitions can be disposed of conveniently by a common argument and judgment. We, accordingly, have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners; learned Counsel for the N.I.T. and learned Counsel f...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT175Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Tata Chemicals Ltd., respondent to this appeal located in Uttar Pradesh at Babrala is engaged in the manufacture of fertilisers. It purchased naphtha manufactured by Indian Oil Corporation and Oil and Natural Gas Commission at Hajira in Gujarat. These two companies cleared the product at a concessional rate of duty of Rs. 5.50 per kilo litre in terms of notification 75/84. This notification provides for partial exemption from duty to naphtha used in the manufacture of ammonia and fertilisers and contains a condition that where the use of naphtha is in a factory other than the factory of manufacture, the procedure contained in Chapter X shall be followed. This procedure requires issue of a certificate in the factory of use of the exempted material, referred to as CT-2 certificate that it required for use in the manufacture of final product specified in the notification, which is the condition to the notification. The officers having jurisdiction over the respondent's factory, were o...
Mukesh Patel Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT617Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in this case is whether the transporter has helped smuggling of the goods. One of the charges against the man who imported the goods was that he has not filed baggage declaration at the time of importation. The appellant before me is the transporter. In the impugned order at page 10 it has been specifically found by the adjudicating authority as follows :- "The said goods were warehoused under warehouse entry No, B-3827 Karappamvettil A. Backer filed a baggage declaration from BDF No. 003843, dt. 12-4-2000 for clearance of unaccompanied baggage declaring the goods." 2. The case of the department is that Mukesh Patel had helped the smuggling of the goods on the basis of the statement of Backer and reliance has been made on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh J. Sukhwani v. UOI - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 (S.C.) = 1996 (62) ECR 366.3. I find that the application of the said case is misapplied here. It is not at all relevant for the purpose of the dis...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai Vs. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT202Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, was engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products on orders placed on it by Glaxo India Ltd. After manufacture, the respondent sent these drugs to the sales depot of Glaxo India Ltd. for sale therefrom by the latter. In the price list that it had filed for these goods, the respondent had indicated the price, including excise duty, at which Glaxo India Ltd. was to sell these goods at its depot to its dealers and applying the discount that Glaxo India Ltd. gave to its dealers as well as the excise duty payable, and arrived at the value for assessment in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. Twelve notices issued to the respondent proposed to disallow the discount on the ground that it has not been offered by the manufacturer to the respondent, to its sole buyer, Glaxo India Ltd. In its reply to the notice, the respondent accepted that it was not passing on this discount. It pointed out that at the same time, that th...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Nagpur Vs. Abhideep Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT70Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Notice issued to Abhideep Chemicals P. Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, proposing recovery of Modvat credit taken by it on the ground that it had not followed the proper procedure and appropriate duty had not been paid on the inputs in question. The Dy. Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice. The manufacturer thereupon paid duty in question and appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order before him and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for adjudication afresh. On such adjudication, the Joint Commissioner dropped the proceedings in the demand. In the meantime, the manufacturer had claimed refund of the amount that it had deposited.The Asstt. Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground that it was barred by limitation. He did not accept the contention of the manufacturer that the duty having been paid under protest was safe from limitation. He said later protesting the payment ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »