Mumbai Court June 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.
Cadbury India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT333Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The appellant imported in October, 2001 a consignment of fractionated vegetable fat. The customs drew a sample of the product to ensure whether it complied with the standard prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter the Act) and sent it to the Port Health officer at Mumbai. This authority referred the sample for test to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune. The Baudouin test in the prescribed rule framed under the Act by that organisation showed that the sample did not conform in respect of the requirement of the presence of the raw or refined sesame oil. Notice therefore proposed confiscation of the material as unauthorisedly imported, since the condition in the import policy that such goods must conform to the standard specified in the Act has been contravened. Adjudicating on the notice, the Joint Commissioner held the goods liable to confiscation, permitted it to be re-exported subject to "after submission of proof regarding actual receipt of foreign...
Choudhary International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT493Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are an export house and were in possession of number of import and export passbooks enabling them to import raw materials and consumables for production of goods which would be exported. Three consignments of such raw materials imported by the appellants were seized. One consignment was in the docks pending clearance and the other two consignments were stored by the importers in warehouse after clearance. These goods were stored in the importers' name.Investigations showed that the importers had disposed of certain goods imported in like manner to other persons or through one Shri M.D.Palaria which sales were not in terms of the conditions of the import.The importers waived issue of a written show cause notice and appeared for personal hearing. Before the Commissioner it was claimed that the imports were in accordance with the Policy. While admitting that earlier goods were sold to Mr. M.D. Palaria it was claimed that the goods under seizure would be sold only to act...
Ashish Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC646Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the waterproof fabric manufactured by the appellant. The appellant purchases woven cotton fabrics and dips it in a solution of which the main ingredient is paraffin wax. Thereafter the excess is squeezed out and the fabric dried. The appellant did not pay duty on the fabric on the ground that it was classifiable under Heading 52.07 of the tariff.Fabrics classifiable under Heading 52.07 are exempted from duty if made without the aid of power, and there is no dispute that the appellant did not employ power in its manufacture.2. The notice issued to the appellant proposed classification of the fabric as an impregnated, coated or covered fabric classifiable under Heading 5906.90. After hearing the manufacturer and considering the cause shown, the Collector passed an order dropping the proceedings.After describing the process of the manufacture, he said on visual examination of the sample of the fabric, "I do not fin...
Continental Construction Vs. Export Import Bank of India and
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: IV(2004)BC194
1. This Misc Appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant No. 1 M/s. Continental Construction Limited, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.12.2001, passed by the Incharge Presiding Officer, DRT I, Mumbai on Exhibit 9 in OA. No. 1241/2000.By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer, after hearing both the sides and after perusing the proceedings, especially the order dated 10.9.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the Notice of Motion taken out by the original plaintiff i.e.M/s. Export Import Bank of India (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Exim Bank') in Suit No. 660 of 1998, directed the appellant to deposit amount of compensation which the appellant had received from the United Nations Compensation Commission with the applicant Bank i.e. Exim Bank and the original defendant No. 2 State Bank of India (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'SBI'), who are creditors of the appellant in the proportion of 50.08% and 49.92% respectively....
Virendra Kumar Gandhi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(83)ECC591; 2002LC489(Bombay); 2002(143)ELT508(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. Heard Mr. Diwan in support of this petition Mr. Rana appears for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Patel appears for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5/Respondents added in view of the order passed today on Chamber Summons No. 130 of 2002. 2. This petition seeks directions to the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to give effect to the order dated 18th April, 2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) directing them to return the amount of Rs. 2,00,30,000/- which has been deposited by the first petitioner with Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. This is prayer clause (c) of the petition. The first petitioner is a director of the second petitioner-company which was earlier known as Dimple Overseas Limited. 3. It is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that he is exporter and he hasbeen wrongly involved in the transactions of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The first petitioner was forced to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,00,30,000/- supposed to be his part of the duty allegedly evaded by the Re...
Mohanlal S/O Gowardhan Baid and anr. Vs. Khandelwal Brothers Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR648; (2002)3BOMLR618; 2002(3)MhLj835
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Heard both the sides.2. Admit. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith.3. The appellants filed Special Civil Suit No. 1297 of 1997 against the respondent and against one Rajiv Khandelwal for the recovery of money and it is common ground that on 3rd January, 2000, the suit came to be decreed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. The decree of the Trial Court was an ex parte decree in the amount of Rs. 5,08,530/- inclusive of interest. The appellants instituted Special Darkhast No. 268 of 2001 against the judgment-debtors. The respondent, who is one of the judgment-debtors, has now instituted Special Civil Suit No. 862 of 2001 against the appellants for setting aside the decree, which has been obtained in Special Civil Suit No. 1297 of 1997. In the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was moved vide Exhibit 5 for an order restraining the appellants from taking steps in th...
Mangilal Narsingdas Gattani Vs. Shaligram Ukarda Payghan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj857
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Regular Civil Suit No. 169 of 1974 was instituted by the applicant, who is the Decree-holder, for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,960.40. The suit came to be decreed on 21-9-1974. The applicant thereafter took out execution proceedings in the form of Regular Darkhast No. 98 of 1984. On 19-9-1984 summons in the execution proceedings came to be served on the respondent, who was the judgment-debtor. A warrant of attachment in pursuance thereof was issued on 4-4-1985 and the warrant of attachment was served on the judgment-debtor on 10-6-1985. On 5-11-1985 the sale proclamation under Order XXI, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be settled and it is common ground that the judgment-debtor was present through his advocate, Mr. Nikus. On 19-12-1985, since the warrant in pursuance of the sale proclamation had not been served on the judgment-debtor, a fresh date was granted by the Executing Court. On 11-2-1986 when the matter came up before the Executing Co...
Ramjisingh Bhuliansingh Vs. Tarun K. Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR198; 2002(6)BomCR63
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay dated October 31, 1988 in Misc. Notice No 366 of 1985 in RAE Suit No. 3475 of 1981. By the said Misc. Notice, the petitioner who was in lawful possession of flats Nos. 202 and 203 situated at Agra Road at Kurla, Bombay 70 since 1970 as a licensee, prayed that ex parte decree passed on 5-8-1983 in RAE Suit No. 3475 of 1981 against the tenant be set aside and the execution of the said decree in respect of the suit premises be declared as null and void. Other consequential reliefs were also prayed in the said application.2. It is pertinent to note the backdrop in which the said application came to be filed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was in lawful possession of the suit premises since 1970 as a licensee of one Mr. B. Nath the predecessor-in-title of the respondents 3 and 4 herein, who was the tenant of the...
Nazar Mohammad S/O Hayat Mohammed Shaikh (at Present in Central Prison ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR369
V.M. Kanade. J.1. The appellant/accused was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing death of one Raufkhan and was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 446/95 by Judgment and order dtd. 26th February, 1997 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one more month. The appellant/accused is challenging this Judgment and order in the present appeal.2. Facts :On 27.6.1995 at about 10.00 p.m. deceased Raufkhan was assaulted. It is the case of the prosecution that one Sultan Sheikh had a tyre puncture repairing shop on Khaparkheda Road. Sultan Sheikh was at the hotel of one Gupta and at that time he noticed that there was a quarrel between two persons in front of his shop and they were abusing each other in filthy language. Sultan Sheikh immediately rushed to the liquor shop and informed Madankishor who was serving as a Manage...
Laxman S/O Uttam Tajne Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Police Sta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)767; (2003)105BOMLR592
R.K. Batta, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the same incident in respect of Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1996 held before the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim. Before the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, nine accused had been put up for trial for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim vide judgment dated 3.2.1997 acquitted all the accused of the charges and convicted accused No. 4 Laxman Tajne, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1997 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. He, however, acquitted him of the charges under Sections 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 4 Laxman Tajne has, therefore, filed appeal against his conviction and sentence. The State has come in appeal which is Criminal Appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »