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.
Shree Vridheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. International Tyre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR551; (2003)105BOMLR62
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 22.11.1990 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Court (Bombay) Bench Pune in Appeal No. 305 of 1989.2. Briefly stated the Respondent No. 1, a registered partnership firm dealing in new tyres required for trucks, trollies, tractors and motor cars etc., filed dispute before the Co-operative Court at Pune, being Arbitration Case No. 105/85/86. It was averred that the firm had supplied tyres to the Petitioner Society and was a creditor of the Petitioner Society. Para 3 of the dispute reads thus ;3. The dispute is between the creditor of the Society. The opponent Karkhana is a debtor to the disputant firm. The transaction in dispute is from the year 1983. The opponent karkhana agreed to repay the sale price of the goods supplied to it and others on the written note stating therein that the amount of price will be paid by the karkhana (opponent) within a month. The opponent failed to repay the same within the...
Bapu Gadgil Vs. Smt. Rama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR726; I(2003)DMC770
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard Advocates S/Shri Kasliwal and Dixit for respective parties. Being an issue regarding interpretation of Section 60(l)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure and more particularly proviso to said sub-section, Advocates S/Shri S.C. Bora and R.R. Mantri have also voluntarily rendered assistance, as amicus curiae, in trying to interpret the said provision.2. The revision petition arises because on 19.6.1994, the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhusawal in Regular Darkhast No. 47/1990 ordered attachment from salary of judgment-debtor/revision petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month.3. Majority of the facts in the matter are undisputed. The parties are husband and wife and husband is Government servant. Wife obtained a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 24,999/- against the husband in Regular Civil Suit No. 263/ 1989. Admittedly, this was a decree of payment in lieu of Stridhan items and not a decree for maintenance. Regular Darkhast No. 47/1990 filed...
Softesule Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC103Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are manufacturer of various medicines and pharmaceutical preparations. The classification of certain products under Chapter Heading 3003.10 as patent and proprietary medicaments other than those medicaments which are exclusively ayurvedic, unani, sidha, homeopathic or bio-chemic as approved, was challenged by issue of notices. The entities consist of mixtures of vitamins and minerals or/are only capsules/tablets of vitamins being manufactured, after obtaining proper FDA approvals. The show cause notices were issued proposing to change the classifications from Heading 3003.10 to 2108.99 as 'edible preparations not elsewhere specified or included'. The dispute in the appeal relates to the period July, 1996 to March, 2000.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of classification under Heading 2108.99 except for 'Karvol Plus' on the following findings : "On going through the labels of the products, I find most of them have ingredients Vitamin and Minerals, which t...
Total Lubricants India Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC107Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Total Lubricants India Limited are engaged in the trading of lubricating preparations and greases of TOTAL brand. M/s. Total Petroleum Ltd. entered into an agreement with M/s. Nandan Petrochem Ltd. for manufacture of supply of TOTAL brand lubricating oils on job work basis. M/s. Nandan Petrochem Ltd. were paying Central Excise duty on the finished products in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints Etc. Etc. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.). Show cause notices were issued to the appellants proposing M/s.Total Petroleum Ltd. resale price to its customers as the basis for arriving at the assessable value in respect of the goods manufactured by M/s. Nandan Petrochem Ltd. The differential duty from M/s. Nandan Petrochem Ltd. for the clearances made during the pe...
Central Warehousing Corpn. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT495Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides on the application for stay of operation of the impugned order, we find that the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. We do so.2. The appellants were maintaining and operating an Inland Container Depot at Kapodara, Surat. Customs Public Notice No. 11/96, dated 18-3-96 contained the following provisions - "(a) Custodian shall bear the cost of the Customs staff posted for ICD/ CFS/EP7. The Commissioner of Customs shall decide the number of staff which is required to be posted in the facility considering the workload in the station." 3. In terms of this provision the appellants were to bear cost of the Customs Staff posted for the CSF.4. Show cause notice, dated 6-12-99 alleged that in spite of numer ous communications M/s. CWC failed to paid such costs to the Qustoms. It was alleged that a sum of Rs. 49,77,579/- so outstanding, was recoverable in terms of Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest on the out standing amount @ 20%. Before t...
Trimurti Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT74Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application is for modification of the Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit of Rs. 59,905/- towards duty and Rs. 27,000/- towards penalty. It is claimed that subsequent to this order having been passed on 11-1-2002, application of the present appellants was registered under the BIFR. Copy of the letter of registration dated 20-3-2002 is enclosed. Judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Treasure Tech Electronics Ltd. [2002 (140) E.L.T. 398 (Tribunal) = 2001 (46) RLT 11] is relied upon.2. In this judgment, the Tribunal, in identical circumstances ordered modification of the earlier order and had waived pre-deposit already ordered....
Nilgiri Herbals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT436Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The brief facts of the cases are that in May 1994 M/s. Nilgiri Herbals Pvt. Ltd., appellants herein, who are engaged in the activity of marketing consumer products, entered into an agreement with M/s.Fernhill Laboratories & Industrial Establishment, owners of brand name 'COLIN' permitting the appellants to use the said brand name for marketing glass and household cleaners. After entering into an agreement they placed orders on M/s. Royal Chemical Industries, Vapi for manufacture of household glass cleaners which were supplied in three different unit packings. The bottles so received were stored in the appellant's godown where the manufacturers' labels affixed on such bottles were removed and new labels with the brand name 'COLIN' were affixed. The bottles so re-labelled were put in cartons bearing labels describing the goods as 'COLIN' glass and household cleaners and then sold to various customers. On June 6, 1995 a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants demanding duty...
Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Dura Syntex Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC727Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE tapes, fabrics and sacks. There was a dispute regarding classification of these products - the assessees contended that the products were classifiable under Chapter 39 while the department classified them under various sub-headings of Chapter 54 of the Schedule to CETA, 1985. Thereafter classification of the products was confirmed under Chapter 39 by various authorities and the Board also issued a circular to that effect. The respondents therefore filed a claim for refund of excess amount of Rs. 11,33,403/- covering the period from 1-3-1988 to 11-7-1989 on the basis of re-determination of duty under Chapter 39. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground of unjust enrichment; the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order holding that the bar of unjust enrichment was not attracted in this case; hence this appeal by the Revenue.2. We have heard Shri Uma Shankar, l...
Euro-asia Chartering Corpn. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Fortune International Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom447; 2002(4)ALLMR215; 2002(6)BomCR783; 2002(4)MhLj179
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Mr. Bharucha, learned counsel for the petitioner, tenders affidavit of service dated 19-6-2002 on the respondent.2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks in effect enforcement of a New York Convention award dated 16-12-2001 passed by Nicholas S. Swales, the sole Arbitrator at Singapore. The enforcement of such an award is covered by part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Section 47 requires the party to comply with certain requirements. It reads as follows :'47. Evidence.--(1) The party applying for the enforcement of a foreign award shall, at the time of the application, produce before the court- (a) the original award or a copy thereof, duly authenticated in the manner required by the law of the country in which it was made; (b) the original agreement for arbitration or a duly certified copy thereof; and (c) such evidence as may be necessary to prove that the award is a foreign award. (2) If the award or agreem...
Omkar Sitaram Rane Vs. Maharashtra State Khadi and Village Industries ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR492]; (2003)ILLJ929Bom; 2003(1)MhLj643
A. B. Naik, J. FACTS IN BRIEF :1. This petition is filed challenging the orders passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad and Industrial Court Aurangabad. The petitioner was in employment at relevant time with respondent No. 1. Petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 1 on 26th October 1983 and was dismissed from service for proved misconduct. This dismissal led the filing of complaint by the petitioner under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1971) under item Nos. 1(a), (b), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV. The Labour Court after trial, allowed the said complaint in part by the order dated 11th August 1988. The learned judge of the Labour Court, Aurangabad declared that the respondent engaged in unfair labour practice, but instead of reinstatement, directed the respondent to pay compensation.2. The order passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad on August 11, 1988 came to be challenged by both the parti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »