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.
Dharyashil Alias Pampi Mahadevrao Ghatge Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ317
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellant is challenging the Judgment and order dated 13-12-1996 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1996 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. He has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- i.d. R.I. for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the I.P.C.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as revealed from the evidence on record is as under:The appellant i.e. original accused No. 1 who is known as Pampi Sarkar is a resident of Kolhapur. He used to collect cash from jobless persons by giving them assurances that he will give them a job in the office of Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Kolhapur, (Hereinafter referred to as MSEB). Ramchandra Patil (deceased) had collected cash of about Rs. 15000 per head from his villagers and other job...
Mahalaxmi Railway Karmachari Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Ltd. Vs. An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR20
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Palil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mardikar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is a Housing Society and is sub-classified as 'Tenant Co-partnership Co-operative Housing Society' There are in all 106 members. The Society purchased the land for allotment of plots to its members. The respondent No. 1 was admitted as a Member of the Society and one plot was allotted to him. As per the Resolutions passed by the General Meetings as well as Managing Committee Meetings of the Society, every member had to pay development charges, maintenance charges, Nazul taxes etc., to the Society.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Society accordingly made demands by issuing notices to the respondent No. 1. H...
Jyoti Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT178Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant received between February, 1993 and January, 1994 consignment of steel sheets and took credit of the duty which was deemed to have been paid on these goods by order dated 12-7-92 of the Ministry of Finance. It cleared during this period these goods to its sister concern at Gorva, after debiting the credit that it took. Notice issued to it dated 19-4-96 alleged short debit by the assessee of the credit on these goods on the basis that in terms of Rule 57F(1)(2), the goods ought to have been cleared as if they have been manufactured in the factory, and the difference between the duty so payable on them and what was debited was demanded. Adjudicating on the notice, the Commissioner has confirmed the duty and imposed penalty on the same amount. The notice invoked the extended period contained in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57-I alleging suppression of 'material facts' of clearance.2. After hearing both sides, the extended period of limitation would not be available. The notice d...
Zakir HussaIn S/O Abbas Ali Bohara Vs. Ravindrakumar Mohanchand Sahu a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj813
D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 1 is the landlord of the suit premises, and filed proceedings under the provisions of Clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order. The Rent Controller, vide Order dated 23-5-2000, granted permission to issue quit notice to the petitioner-tenant under Clause 13(3)(ii) and rejected the permission sought by the landlord under Clause 13(3)(i) of the Order. The petitioner challenged the said order before the respondent No. 2-Appellate Authority, who, vide order, dated 24-7-2000, allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and set aside the permission granted by the Rent Controller under Clause 13(3)(ii) of the Order. It is further contended that the respondent-landlord filed a Review Pe...
Ayashabi Wd/O Mohamed Nazir and ors. Vs. Mrs. M.H. Niyazi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR26; 2002(6)BomCR57; 2002(4)MhLj15
A.M Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bombay in Appeal No. 690 of 1980 in R. A. Declaratory Suit No. 2670 of 1973 dated September 3, 1986. This Writ petition was called out for hearing on June 13, 2002 when the learned Counsel was informed that the question agitated in this Writ Petition was no more res integra. The learned counsel prayed for time to examine that position. Today when the matter is called out, none appears in the matter. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners claim to be in possession of the premises being block No. 22 on the first floor of Gajare building, 243, Maulana Azad Road, formerly known as Ripon Road, Mumbai. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was inducted in the suit premises by the respondents-landlord as a licencee. The Respondent No. 1 instituted an Ejectment Application No. 226/E of 1962 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against the origi...
Dadabhau Shankar Ghodke and ors. Vs. Mohanlal Kanhyalal Agrawal and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR121; (2003)1BOMLR676; 2003(1)MhLj446
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. This revision petition arises out of the order passed on 14-1-2002 by the learned II Joint Civil Judge J.D. Jalna below Exhibit 111 in Regular Civil Suit No. 547 of 1996. Limited details regarding facts which are not disputed and requisite for present petition, are as follows.Respondents are plaintiffs. They filed the suit for declaration of title and possession of agricultural lands. They claimed that the properties were owned by their grand father and inherited by them through their uncle, since father predeceased uncle and thereafter, the uncle acted as Karta of the joint family.Defendants approached with a plea that uncle and eldest brother of plaintiff (who is now dead) had agreed to sale the suit land in favour of defendant No. 1. In the alternative, it is claimed that if the isar pavati has not passed the title in favour of defendants, they have become ...
Ramchandra Akaram Patil Vs. Parshuram Krishna Irale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR7; 2002(6)BomCR733
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, Camp at Kolhapur dated 19th August, 1988 in Rev. Application No. MRT-SS-77/1988. The land is question bears Gat No. 1048 admeasuring 3 Hectors 91 R of village Sawarde. The said land originally belonged to Gangubai Pandurang Kulkarni, now represented by respondents Nos. 3 to 8. According to the petitioner the suit land was leased out to him by a registered lease deed on 2nd March, 1978. However, according to the respondents 1 and 2 the suit land were purchased by them for 3 Anna share each from Gangubai Kulkarni and others on 28th April, 1978 and, pursuant to the said transaction, they were put in possession of the suit land and were enjoying the same since then. The petitioner however, claims that he has been wrongfully dispossessed, therefore, filed application before the Tahsildar, Tasgaon under section 70(b) of Bombay Tenancy and A...
Deutsche Bank A.G. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: [2003]86ITD431(Mum)
ORDER1 to 10. (These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.)11. The next ground taken up by the assessee is regarding the addition of Rs. 1,90,07,000 towards unrealised profits on unexecuted forward foreign exchange contracts as on 31-3-1991. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer observed that the assessee claimed a loss on account of foreign exchange transaction entered into by it amounting to Rs. 64,98,677. The assessing officer asked the assessee to furnish the figures of profits, if any on such outstanding contracts. The assessee furnished the figures of such profits amounting to Rs. 3,03,40,000. The assessing officer has stated that the assessee did not file any explanation as to why these profits should not be included in its income for the year under consideration. The assessee, however, explained that they were following the method of accounting suggested by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in valuing such profits. The ass...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pharma Cap and Harness Wire
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC18
1. The common question for consideration in these appeals is whether each of the respondents could be permitted to pay duty on the goods manufactured and cleared by it and consequently takes credit of the inputs used in the manufacture of these goods. The notice issued to each of them proceeded on the footing that since the goods were exempted from duty in terms of Clause (2) of paragraph 1 of Notification 1/93, the question of payment of duty on them would not arise and hence Modvat credit could not be taken on the duty paid on the inputs. The Asst. Commissioner . confirmed the proposal in the notice. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) found in favour of the assessees. Hence, these appeals by the Commissioner.2. The departmental representative emphasises the ground in the appeal that the assessees could not pay any duty on goods which are exempted and was required, since they were exempted.3. After hearing the counsel for Pharma Cap, we are unable to agree. As we pointed out, the ...
Vipor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT385Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of linear alpha olefin C-14 imported by the appellant. The appellant claimed classification of the goods under Heading 29.01 which covers unsaturated acyclic hydrocarbons. By notice issued to the appellant, the department proposed classification of the goods under Heading 27.10 as petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals. The Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice. He did not accept the contention raised before him by the importer that the report dated 14-11-1998 of the test by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT for short), Mumbai containing the result of the test carried out by it was in its favour. He relied on an opinion of the Dy. Chief Chemist which stated that the test carried out by the IIT did not indicate the nature of the isomers, the presence of which may make a difference to the classification. He confirmed the classification proposed in the notice.3. The importer...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »