Mumbai Court March 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.
Pitambarlal Chetandas Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR218; (2004)IILLJ181Bom
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri S.G. Deshmukh for the appellant, Shri Mehta for the respondents.2. Shri Deshmukh, counsel for the appellant pointed out that the learned Judge while holding that the appellant was unable to work as skilled Turner has failed to compensate him appropriately, in view of the earlier decision of Medical Appellate Board treating him to be suffering from disability to the tune of 20%. Thus this Court finds force in the submission for the reasons stated hereunder:For deciding the compensation awardable to an employee who has been covered under Employees' State Insurance Corporation coverage, his job has to be considered and the risk point involved has to be given due weightage. While judging his disability it is necessary to find out whether after getting the medical treatment and after recovering from; the accident whether that employee would be able to work as he used to do. Another auxiliary point which needs to be considered is whether such employee would be abl...
Stanlek Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(105)LC762Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We waive pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof, and proceed to dispose off the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellants are manufacturers of Motor parts falling under chapter 8536.90. They also manufacturer on job work for M/s. Lucas Indian Services. The appellants avail benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/99 dated 28.2.1999 for their own branded and unbranded goods and pay full duty on the branded goods manufactured for M/s. Lucas. The appellants cleared their own goods valued at Rs. 7,11,680/- during the period from 1.10.1999 to 29.2.1999 at 'Nil' rate of duty. The deptt. issued a show cause notice dated 31.3.1999 to the appellants alleging that, since the appellants are availing the benefit of modvat credit they ought to have paid duty on the clearance of their own goods, therefore duty of Rs. 68,321.29, is recoverable from them. The show cause notice was confirmed by the Assistant Comm...
Fresh Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT335Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This bunch of four appeals is against the common order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay. By this order, the Collector has demanded duty of Rs. 8.11 lakhs approx. on 7.2 tons of sodium lauryl sulphate imported by Choice Laboratories and wrongly cleared without payment of duty under Notification 159/90; demanded duty on 2.2 tons of clove bud oil which he finds imported by Ratilal Hemraj and wrongly cleared under Notification 159/90; ordered confiscation of 1998 kilogram of peppermint oil under Clause (o) of Section 111 of the Act giving an option to Choice Laboratories to render the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. He has said that the appropriate amount of duty of Rs. 25.25 lakhs shall be recovered before the goods are redeemed. He has imposed penalty under Section 112 of the Act of Rs. 5.00 lakhs on Choice Laboratories, Rs. 1.00 lakh on Fresh Laboratories, Rs. 1.00 lakh on Ratilal Hemraj and of Rs. 15.00 lakhs on Yogesh Korani.2. We have heard the arguments of the cou...
The Bar Council of Maharashtra a Statutory Body of Legal Professionals ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom220; 2002(4)BomCR108; 2002(2)MhLj842
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By means of this Writ Petition filedunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India,the Bar Council of Maharashtra, a statutory Bodyof legal professionals, constituted underAdvocates Act, 1961 and one of its members seek tochallenge the constitutional validity of Section24 (1) (f) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and forpermitting the State Bar Council to charge suchannual fee as the Bar Council of India may decidefrom time to time in consultation with the otherState Bar Councils.2. It is Petitioners case that Section 24(1)(f) is otiose, obsolete and otherwise tends torestrict and curtail the fundamental right to formassociation and freedom of carrying outprofession. According to Bar Council, the onlysource of finance available to it is the provisionof Section 24(1)(f) according to which the BarCouncil is entitled to an enrolment fee. Theenrolment fee is payable once at the time ofenrolment and thereafter there is no provisionenabling the Bar Council to charge any fees orcont...
Daniel Premacey Ramball Vs. Joseph Charlas Salvi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR223; 2002(4)MhLj133
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This Appeal arises from the Judgment and Order dated 19th March 1990 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Nasik in Civil Misc. Application No. 176 of 1984. By the impugned Judgment and Order the lower Court has rejected the Application for grant of probate to the Appellant in relation to Exh. 45 which was stated to be the last Will allegedly executed by one Maltibai Kennith Ramball on 19th July 1969. Heard the Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The undisputed facts in the matter are that one Kennith Ramball expired on 19th July 1947 leaving behind him his third wife Maltibai. Prior to that he had married two other ladies, one of them being Nanibai, who expired leaving behind her husband Kennith and two sons, namely, William and Premisel. In fact, the marriage of Nanibai with Kennith was her second marriage and at the time of their marriage, Nanibai had one son by name, William out of her first marriage. William is survived by Vijay, who i...
Bandekar Brothers Private Limited, a Private Limited Company Incorpora ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3475
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-landowners question acquisition of their lands for the purposes of construction of a road leading to jetty of respondents No. 5 and 6, which are private limited companies engaged in mining business. Both the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 511/2007 are private limited companies, engaged in mining. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 542/2007, except petitioner No. 3, are individuals whose lands are also being acquired for the same purpose. Petitioner No. 2 therein is a temple of Shree Dev Chandrashwar, through its Managing Committee. The petitions have been directed to be disposed of at the stage of admission itself as per Order dated 15.1.2008. It appears that Writ Petition No. 542/2007 was admitted on 1.7.2008 and interim relief granted on 10.12.2007 was continued. It is admitted position that said Order dated 10.12.2007 is identical in both the writ petitions and ...
Chandrashekar Mahadappa Mitkari Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR876; 2002(5)BomCR594; (2002)3BOMLR319; 2003(1)MhLj587
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent petition taken up for final hearing.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner who was appointed as a Chairman of respondent No. 3 Society and who has been removed by no-confidence motionpassed on 30th October 2001. A notice was issued by this court to the respondents asking them to show cause why the petition should not be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. In pursuance of the notice, the respondents appeared and the petition is heard today.3. The facts may be stated briefly thus:--On 11th February 2001, the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the respondent No. 13 society. There were 9 members of the Managing Committee including the Chairman and the Vice Chairman. On 19th October 2001, three members of the Managing Committee (being equal to 1/3 of the total strength complete) submitted a requisition notice under section 73-ID of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Act) read with Rul...
Vandana Dyeing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC219Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For reasons recorded below we waive pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 2,000/- and stay recovery thereof and proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The brief facts are that the appellants herein are independent textile processors manufacturing notified goods under Notification 41/98 dated 16.12.1998 on which duty has to be paid on compounded levy basis under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act on the basis of Hot Air Stenter Machines. The Commissioner of Central Excise vide his order dt. 6.1.2000 finally determined the rate of duty as Rs. 2 lakhs per chamber. The determination was done by including the length of galleries in the chambers of the hot air stenter. The stenter was closed from 6.1.2000 to 13.1.2000 and hence the appellants were granted abatement in duty of Rs. 37,161/-. This duty demand was confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner relying upon the circular dated 27.2.1999 of the Government of india and Explanation 1 to Notification 42/98. Th...
M. Square Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC217Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals are against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, demanding duty of Rs. 17,08,474/- from M. Square Chemicals and imposing a penalty on it of Rs. 5,00,000/- and imposing a penalty under Rule 209 of Rs. 50,000/- on Mahendra Kumar Vyas, its partner.3. Duty of Rs. 1,70,274/- has been demanded by notice dated 21-5-1992 on consignments of acid slurry cleared by the manufacturer in October, 1985. The demand is clearly barred by limitation, being in extended period of five years contained in Section 11A. The remaining duty has been demanded on the ground that the assessee manufactured and cleared detergent out of a quantity of 700 tons of soda ash which it showed as its stock in private records which did not figure in the excise records as its raw materials. The proceedings were initiated by a search of the premises of the assessee appellants by the officers of the Income-tax department who found this entry made in the books of account. The notice to show c...
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT624Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Duty of Rs. 13.12 lakhs demanded from, and equal amount of penalty imposed on, the applicant on the ground that it did not pay duty on the scrap that it manufactured. The scrap resulted as a result of wear and tear of various goods, such as wire netting used for fencing the applicant's grounds and the angles, channels being used, which the applicant wore out and therefore unsuitable for use as such.2. It cannot be disputed that the item in question falls within the definition of various scrap contained in the tariff emerged as a result of wear and wear of article which cannot be used as such. The question, however, is whether this scrap has emerged as a result of manufacture by the applicant. Wear and tear of these goods has taken place because of the operation of the elements. It is difficult in these circumstances to say that it is as a result of manufacturing activity which the applicant undertook, that the scrap has emerged. On this prima facie view, we waive deposit of the dut...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »