Mumbai Court June 2002 Judgments
Arun Kisan Madavi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)554; (2002)104BOMLR71
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for the murder of Prem Haridas Dhole under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide judgment dated 30th September, 1997 found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of Rs. 5.000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The period during which the appellant was in custody during trial was set off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that about 15 days prior to incident in question one Omprakash father-in-law of the appellant was arrested by the Government Railway Police, Nagpur in a case of theft of lacs of rupees. In connection with the said fact, the deceased who was a porter of Railway Station, Nagpur was asked by G.R.P. Police to keep a watch on the appellant, being son-in-law of Omprakash. The appellant came to know of the same and on 15.6.1996, he came to the house of t...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT322Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants herein imported goods described as Honda Engines Models No. GX 160 and GX 200 and Honda Water Pump Model WBK 207 and filed a Bill of Entry on 12-4-1996 for clearance of the goods under Open General Licence (OGL) Exim Policy 1992-1997. Goods examined and found to be "prime movers" and found to be "consumer goods" which required licence for their imports. The examination of the goods showed that they were actually General Purpose Engines which could be used for various purpose.2. The adjudicating authority held that the case would be covered by the definition of the consumer goods and hence, confiscated the goods with option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 7,65,000/-. Hence, this appeal.3. We have heard both sides and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of Asian Power Controls v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, Order No.2340/97/WZB, dated 16-6-1997 [1999 (109) E.L.T. 994 (Tribunal)] in w...
Tag this Judgment!Minicomp Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT34Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The challenge of the assessee to the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is against his finding that the training imparted by the appellants enriches the value of the computers manufactured and cleared by them and promotes its marketability and therefore training charges are required to be included in the assessable value of the computers.2. None appears for the appellant in spite of notice. Hence we have heard the learned DR and perused the records.3. In the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Sunray Computers - 1988 (33) E.L.T.787 (T) the Tribunal has held that training of customer's staffs, whether prior to the delivery of the computer or thereafter can be said to have no nexus with the manufacture or marketability of the computer and hence its value is not includible in the assessable value of the computers. The same view has been taken in the case of Auto Control Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 4. Following the ratio of the above decisions we hold that the training charges do not form part of...
Tag this Judgment!Amruta Enterprises Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)84ITD172(Mum.)
1. All the above four appeals have been posted before us first to decide a limited issue about appeal filing fees in respect of penalty appeals and thereafter if deemed fit to adjudicate upon the merits of the case. This matter has come up before us in view of the following circumstances. The assesses has filed above referred appeals to the Tribunal on 11th July, 2001, by hand as indicated by the Registry. The only dispute in the above four appeals relates to the confirmation of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The penalties levied for concealment of income are as under : The assessee has paid Rs. 500 each respectively for each assessment year as "Filing Fees" at the time of filing appeals before the Tribunal. The Registry has doubted that the appropriate filing fee payable under Section 253(6) of IT Act has not been deposited. The Registry has worked out shortfall in deposit of fees as under : 2. The matter was placed before Hon'ble Vice President for orders as to whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!Parvatibai W/O Ganpatrao Savale and ors. Vs. Bhagwat Rambhau Shelke an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC292; 2004ACJ1647; 2003(1)ALLMR141; 2002(4)MhLj27
B.B. Vagyani, J.1. This First Appeal is directed against the award dated 12-2-1988 passed by the Ex-officio Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 15 of 1985. 2. In brief, facts giving rise to this First Appeal are as under : The appellant No. 1 Parvatibai is the mother of deceased Nandkishor. The appellant No. 2 Vijaykumar and appellant No. 4 Sunil are the brothers of deceased Nandkishor. The appellant No. 3 Miss Maya is the sister of deceased Nandkishor. The incident occurred on 21st November 1984 on Nanded-Latur road. The tractor with a trolly bearing No. 9855 and 7578 respectively was passing by the Nanded-Latur road. The time was 6.30 p.m. The tractor was going towards Nanded side. The motorcyclist came from Nanded side and was proceeding towards Ahmedpur. The trolly was carrying passengers about 25 in number. The driver of the tractor drove the vehicle at a high speed while the motorcyclist was keeping the moderate speed. The trac...
Tag this Judgment!Viraj Holdings Vs. Motilal Oswal Securities Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR713; 2002(6)BomCR759; [2003]115CompCas102(Bom); 2002(4)MhLj65
S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioner Viraj Holdings challenges the arbitral award dated 18-1-2000 made by the Arbitrator at the National Stock Exchange. By the award, the learned Arbitrator has held that respondent No. 1 M/s. Motilal Oswal Securities Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 21,66,489.73.2. The first ground of challenge made by Mr. Kamdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim made by the respondent since admittedly no agreement between the petitioner as a sub-broker and the respondent as a broker was executed between the parties. According to the learned counsel, even if such an agreement was not executed, an Arbitrator at the National Stock Exchange would have jurisdiction provided a constituent-broker agreement was executed between the parties. Admittedly, none of these two agreements have been executed between the parties. There is no dispute on behalf of the respondent that the statement of claim is no...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Shivaji Anandrao Chede
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)344; (2002)4BOMLR146; 2002CriLJ4198; 2002(4)MhLj201
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This is an appeal moved by the State of Maharashtra against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Osmanabad, in Sessions Case No. 50 of 1983 on 14th August, 1984, by which the present respondent-original accused came to be acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The respondent came to be enrolled as Advocate with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa at Bombay. While he was a student of law, he was married to Kausalyabai from whom he begot a son. He set-up his practice at Bhoom and Osmanabad and claims to have flourished in the same. His wife Kausalya died and he married to Nirmala on 19th May, 1982. After his second marriage he shifted to Aurangabad for practising as an Advocate before this Bench in June, 1982. He claims to have shifted to New Delhi for his practice in March, 1983. When he married Nirmala, his son from his first wife Kausalya was about 10 years old. He came back to his native pl...
Tag this Judgment!Shobha Wd/O Suresh Wankhede and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ569; 2002(4)MhLj349
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The first Appellant is the widow of an employee of the Central Railways, Suresh Wankhede. Appellants 2 to 5 are her four sons. Appellants 6 and 7 are the parents of the deceased. Widowed at the age of 41, the first Appellant is 48 years of age today. The parents of the deceased are 71 and 68 years of age respectively.2. The husband of the first appellant, was working as a Ticket Train Examiner. On 20th June, 1995 while he was on duty on the Gitanjali Express, he fell out of a running train between the Malkhed and Chandur Railway stations, and died. The fact that the death occurred while the employee was on duty, is not a disputed position as it cannot be. The record and proceedings of the case which has been called for and has been perused by me, inter alia, contains a letter ofcondolences addressed to the first appellant by the Divisional Railway Manager, which expressly adverts to the circumstance that the death of the employee occurred while he was on duty. On...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Tarabai W/O Shashikant Mayekar Vs. State of Maharashtra Through t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR424
R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Siddharth @ Siddhu Shashikant Mayekar, has filed this petition for quashing detention order dated 18th September, 2001 issued by the respondent No. 2 under which the detenu has been ordered to be detained under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred as the said Act).2. Learned Advocate Shri M. R. Daga argued on behalf of the detenu and has raised before us three submissions namely :-(1) There is no live link between the detention order and prejudicial activities and delay in issuing the detention order has not been explained. In this respect, reliance has been placed on Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar v. S. Ramamurthi and Ors. : 1994CriLJ620 .(2) The detention is based upon solitary incident and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pradip Bhikaji Satam v. S. M. Shangari and Ors. : 2002(2)MhLj162 dete...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Vasudeva Kurup Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom64; II(2003)BC481; 2002(6)BomCR39; 2002BomCR(Cri)876; 2002(4)MhLj838
C.K. Thakkar, C.J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner, a practising advocate praying for a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction ordering respondent No. 1, Union of India, other respondents as also Courts of law everywhere in India, not to take cognizance of any case or proceeding under sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act 66 of 1988),2. The petitioner is a citizen of India. He is a lawyer by profession, practising in the High Court of Bombay as well as in other courts in Bombay since 1966. He has approached this court in public interest litigation by filing this petition for seeking a direction from this Court which would prevent illegal prosecution and thus benefit general public all over India.3. The case of the petitioner is that the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was enacted and came into force in Dece...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »