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.
Control Engineers Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(106)LC385Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The representative, S.H. Jain, brother of proprietor P.H. Jain requests adjournment on the ground that the proprietor has gone to Vadodara. He is not able to explain why he could not return. I therefore decline to adjourn.2. After hearing the departmental representative. I purpose to dispose of the appeal itself.3. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the penalty imposed on the appellant for delay in paying duty on goods manufactured and cleared by it and ordering recalculation of the interest liability. The appeal is limited to the penalty. The Dy. Commissioner in his order in original has found that the appellant delayed payment of duty of Rs. 20,000/- on goods cleared in August 1999 payable by 15.9.1999 by about six days and delayed payment of goods cleared in September payable by 15th October by various periods ranging to 32 days.4. The appeal does not deny the delay in payment of duty but attributes it to "genuine financial and liquidity cri...
Comunidade of Chicalim, by Its Attorney (Procurador), Shri J.J.S. Rodr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Bom)76; [2002]258ITR183(Bom)
V. C. Daga, J.1. The present petitioner, the Comunidade ofChicalim, filed this petition to challenge Notice issuedunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the 'ITAct' for short), dated 18th March, 1991, bearing No.O.21/W1 (Annexure P. 4) and by an interim order furtherproceedings pursuant to the Notice were stayed.FACTS IN BRIEF 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No. I, Margao,Goa, has issued the above Notice on the grounds that hehas a reason to believe that the petitioners income inthe status of body of individuals (BOI) chargeable to taxfor the Assessment Year 1986-1987, has escapedassessment, within the meaning of Section 147 of the ITAct and that, therefore, he proposes to re-assess thepetitioners income for the said Assessment Year. He hasrequired the petitioner to deliver to him a return in theprescribed form, of the petitioners income for the saidAssessment Year 1986-1987.3. The petitioner, after receipt of theaforesaid Notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, byletter dated...
Wandrekar, GumasThe and Mhatre (Firm) Vs. Abhijit Co-operative Housing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR35; 2002(6)BomCR46; 2002(4)MhLj702
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai dated January 24, 1990 in Appeal No. 204/1989. By this order the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1-society, as a consequence of which the dispute instituted by respondent No. 1 society which was dismissed for default by the First Court came to be restored. Briefly stated, the dispute was filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner sometime in 1975. The said dispute was dismissed for default by the Co-operative Court on 24th July 1984 on the ground that when the dispute was called out the disputant was absent. The order also records that even on the last occasion the disputant was absent when the case was for recording of evidence. In the circumstances, the said disputecame to be dismissed for default. Although this order was passed on 24th July 1984, the restoration application came to be filed only on ...
Motorola India Limited Vs. Kiklu I. Malani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom92; 2003(1)ALLMR158; 2003(1)BomCR323; (2002)4BOMLR847; 2002(4)MhLj717
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Plaintiffs have filed the present Summary Suit for reliefs as prayed for. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they had taken premises on leave and license from the defendant. One of the terms was that the plaintiffs would deposit and keep deposited a sum of Rs. 45.00 lakhs as security. This amount was to be refunded on the expiry or sooner determination of the license after deducting therefrom all the amounts due and payable by the licensee to the licensor and on the licensee handing over to the licensor quite, vacant and peaceful possession of the licensed premises. If the licensor failed to refund the security deposit on the expiry or soon after determination of the license in that event the licensor was liable to pay to the licensee interest on the said amount at the rate of 30% per annum from the date of expiry or soon after determination thereof. The plaintiffs have pleaded and relied on various documents in support of their case. Letter dated 20th November, 1...
Vishnu S/O Namdeo Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR200; (2003)2BOMLR88; 2002(4)MhLj181
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This group of four Writ Petitions was taken up together for motion hearing as common question in respect of Government Resolution dated 10th October 1973 is raised. All these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, we shall refer to the facts obtaining in Writ Petition No. 5160 of 2000. The petitioners are the real brothers and it is their case that 0.81 hectares of land was acquired out of land bearing the then Survey No. 86/2 (presently Gut No. 365) for the public purpose, namely, for resettlement of the Project affected persons, by issuance of notification under Section 4 in the year 1973, Section 6 in the year 1975 and award was passed on 10th March 1977 by the Land Acquisition Officer, determining the compensation for the compulsory acquisition of petitioners' land. The petitioners accepted the amount of compensation as per award. The petitioners relying on the Government Resolution dated 10-10-1973 have set ...
Rambhau Jagoji Gadre Vs. Shantabai Wd/O Shankarrao Deshpande Through H ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR800; (2002)3BOMLR463; 2003(1)MhLj791
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. By the impugned judgment and decree dated 4-3-1989, the learned Additional District Judge, Amravati, has allowed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 31-3-1984 of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Amravati, decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract instituted by the appellant against the predecessor-in-title of the respondents. This second appeal was admitted on 16-6-1989 and the substantial question of law which has been raised is as to whether the averment contained in the plaint to the effect that the appellant was 'ever ready and willing to execute the sale-deed in his favour after making a payment of Rs. 200/-' would amount to compliance with the requirement that the plaintiff must plead that he has been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of contract which are put forth by him.2. The suit for specific performance was instituted on 16-4-1982 before the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Amravati. According to the appella...
Babu Gangaram Choudhari and ors. Vs. M.R. Deshpande and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR70; 2002(6)BomCR77
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 23-2-1987 in Revision No. MRT-P.XII-4-1984 (TNC-B-289/84), Pune.2. The petitioners are the landlords in respect of survey Nos. 142/2-A and 142/2-B, now renumbered as Gat No. 868/4 at Naigaon, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. This matter involves chequered history. Suffice it to mention that the respondents are claiming through their predecessor-in-title Sopana Choudhari. The tenancy authority initiated proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for declaring Shankar Rambhau Sopana as the tenant in respect of the suit lands. Before the Tenancy Authority, the respondents disputed the title of the petitioners as landlords. To dispel that contention the petitioners placed reliance on the order passed by the Civil Court declaring Babu Gangaram Chaudhari, predecessor of the present petitione...
Bhaiyya Singh Ramchandra Bais Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Sec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR107
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order of respondent No. 1 in categorising petitioner's case in Guideline No. 1(d) issued under the Government letter dated 11th May, 1992.2. The petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of his mistress by setting her on fire.3. The petitioner was placed under category 1(e) and has been directed to be released after 28 years. Petitioner is challenging this order passed by the respondent No. 1. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the Guidelines issued under Government letter dated 11.5.1992, case of the petitioner falls in Guideline No. 1(a), which reads as under :-1. Murders relating to sexual matters arising out of relations with women, dowry deaths & other form of bride killing etc. (a) Where the convict is the...
Espirit Switchger Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(106)LC171Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the liability of the appellant to deposit totalling Rs. 2,65,380/- demanded as modvat credit on three counts and penally of Rs. 20,000/-.3. The counsel for the appellant states that the appeal is limited to the demand for modvat credit of Rs. 151547/- and the penalty. He states that the credit which was taken of the duty paid on various inputs required by the appellant for the manufacture of its finished product, moulded integrated circuit breakers has been denied only on the ground that particulars relating to the input credit were not made in the RG 23A Part I register. He accepts that there was a failure to make this entry but says that the entry for taking the credit was made. Although the show cause notice alleges that the inputs were not utilised in the finished product, there is no such finding either by the Joint Commissioner or by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the credit cannot be denied, although he accepts that t...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Kores (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC1032Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Kores (India) Ltd., Mumbai, the respondent to this appeal/ imported in 1991 a consignment of cold seamless steel tubes and cleared them into the public bonded warehouse operated by the Central Warehousing Corporation. Although the bond expired in May, 1991 the importer did not take any steps to dear the goods until 1997. In that year, it filed an application for abatement of duty in terms of Clause (c) to Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act on the ground that the goods were damaged having been badly pitted. The Assistant Commissioner rejected this claim. He said that the goods had been stored in the bonded warehouse from 7-5-1991 onwards on which date the bond expired and no extension of the bond period has been granted. If they had been damaged due to accident during that period, the provisions of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act would have been attracted. He attributed the damage to the goods to long storage in open and exposed atmosphere saying that it...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »