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.
Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC639Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to the benefit of the exemption contained in Entry 57 of the table to the Notification 4/97 to the product "Sun-pac" manufactured by the appellant. The entry fully exempts from duty goods classifiable under Headings 39.23, 39.24 and 39.26 of the Tariff other than goods of polyurethane, insulated ware, bags or sacks made out of fabrics woven from strips or tapes of plastic, and fabrics for making bags or sacks.2. Sunpac, the product under consideration is described in the notices as flexible plastic hollow corrugated sheet made out of duty paid polypropylene co-polymer resin. Counsel for the appellant agrees that this product has been described as such in the classification list. It is common ground that the product is manufactured by a process of extrusion and that it is not further worked upon after it is extruded.The Commissioner (Appeals) has described the product in his order as having "two top and bottom layers a...
Smt. Nirmala Kashinath Rau, Bombay, Vs. Smt. Ratan Vassudev Dhempe, Wi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR29; (2002)4BOMLR41; 2002(4)MhLj568
V.C. Daga, J. 1. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Decreeof the Addl. District Judge, Mapusa in Regular CivilAppeal No.64/1990 dated 31.1.1996, reversing the Judgmentand Decree passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, atPanaji in Civil Suit No.35/80/C dated 28.9.1990, whereinthe suit for eviction has been found to be notmaintainable, in view of the extension of Rent ControlLegislation to the area in which the suit building issituated.FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. The factual background of the case can bestated quite shortly.3. The original plaintiff, late Shri DattatrayaWalaulikar vide Agreement dated 2.8.1971 had allowed oneVasudeo Dhempe to use western half portion of the housesituated in Village of Nerul, Bardez, Goa on monthlypayment of Rs.25/- for a period of 36 months on the leaveand licence basis.4. The original licensee, said Shri VasudeoDhempe left for heavenly abode on 2.7.1972. The presentdefendants continued to use and occupy the said house ashis heirs and successors. The de...
Mahadkar Agency and anr. Vs. Padmakar Achanna Shetty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom136; 2002(4)ALLMR352; 2002(50)BLJR2537
ORDER1. Heard the learned Advocate for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 21st January, 2000. passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 250/1999. allowing the respondent to withdraw the suit. The challenge is mainly three folds, firstly, that the withdrawal of the suit has been allowed ignoring the advantage gained by the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings in relation to the subject matter of the suit by virtue of the order of the Court; secondly, by ignoring the fact that there was already a finding arrived at by the same Court regarding the possession of suit premises with the petitioners and the same was in favour of the petitioners and the matter regarding adjudication of the said finding was pending at the appellate Court and thirdly, on the ground that the impugned order is a non-speaking order.3. The facts, relevant for the decision are that the premises in question un-disputably belong to M/s. Mahadkar Construction Pri...
Anil Anandrao Patil and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ433Bom
P.V. Kakade, J.1. The petitioners are the employees of the respondent No. 2-Shivaji University and are working as employees of the Shivaji University Printing Press. They have come to the Court seeking directions to the respondents to extend and not to exclude the benefit of a salary payment scheme as well as the benefit of the pension-cum- gratuity scheme to them vide various resolutions issued by the respondent No. 1-State Government, the last being dated January 23, 1998 whereby the employees working in the printing press of Pune University were given the benefit of the pension but those who were working in printing press of the Shivaji University were denied the same.2. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the entire record including the affidavits in reply.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 in the year 1981 introduced for the first time the salary payment scheme to non-teaching employees of the non-agricultural Universiti...
Pundalik Sonu Shimpi Vs. Radhabai Sampat Dhumase and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR51; 2002(6)BomCR160
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik dated March 23, 1989 whereby the order passed by the Tahsildar, Kalwan dated 26th January, 1982 in favour of the petitioner came to be set aside in exercise of powers under section 7 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).2. The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order on merits, but the main ground that persuades me to dispose of this writ petition is the ground of limitation. According to the petitioner, the order passed in favour of the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Kalwan is dated 26-1-1982. This order was sought to be reviewed suo motu by the Additional Commissioner in the year 1987; whereas section 7 of the Act postulates that the powers under section 7 can be invoked by the Commissioner suo motu provided that the reco...
Madhusudan R. Mahambre Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR163
V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 22nd February, 1996 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 78 of 1993 by the Additional District Judge, at Panaji.FACTS IN BRIEF2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are:The Government vide notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) and published in the Government Gazette dated 7-11-1991, sought to acquire an area of 21090 square metres of the property of the appellant situated at Latambarcem in Bicholim taluka for the construction of Sanguelim Branch Canal from Ch. 4200 metres to 6045 metres of LBMC of Tilari Irrigation Project. Notification under section 6 was issued on 5-3-1992 and published in Government Gazette dated 30-4-1992. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 8/- per square metre. In the reference proceedings under section 18 of the said Act, the learned Additional District Judge refused to enhance compensation from Rs. 8/- to ...
M.D. Kulkarni Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR446
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Admitted. Mr. P.M. Pradhan, learned Counsel appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent No. 1. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 2. This appeal is filed against summary dismissal of Writ Petition No. 241 of 2001 by the learned Single Judge on February 20, 2001. It is an admitted fact that being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities, of not extending medical benefits to him, the appellant/petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai by filing Original Application No. 673 of 1999 under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Tribunal, by an order dated August, 4, 2000, dismissed the original application subject to certain observations made in that order. The said order was challenged by the appellant/petitioner by filing the above petition. 3. It appears that when the matter came up for admission hearing before th...
Kopran Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC644Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides, I find that the issues are settled. I therefore take up the appeal for disposal on granting waiver of pre-deposit of credit denied of Rs. 1,25,521/-.2. The demand arises as a consequence of denial of modvat credit of duty paid on capital goods. The learned Commissioner in his order had granted relief to a very substantial extent upholding the denial only to the extent as specified above. The position of the various inputs disallowed is as below: (1) Saunder Weir Type Diaphram Valves are used in fermentation and to prevent escape of gases in the atmosphere. (2) Ejector System used for creating vacuum required for drying finished goods.In terms of the Tribunal judgment as upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar Mills v. CCE these goods would qualify as capital goods.3. Computers and Recording Chart: The goods are used as monitor for the process regulation. The following judgment have accepted their admission as capital goods Wires fii Fabrics Ltd. v....
Esdee Paints Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC642Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the paints that the appellant manufactures. The claim that it made for classifying the goods under heading 32.13 of the Tariff as sign board painter's colours has been denied on the ground that it could not be determined with any degree of certainty that paint would only be used by sign board painters once it reaches the market and on the further ground that the goods were not put up in any of the kinds of containers mentioned in the heading. The heading requires the goods to be in tablets, tubes, jars, bottles, pans or in similar forms of packing, they were not metal tins. The decision of the Tribunal in Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. CCE - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 392 was also relied upon by the adjudicating and the appellate authority.2. The contentions of the representative of the appellant are these.The ratio of the Tribunal's decision is not applicable to the facts in the present case. In Goodlass Nerolac Paint c...
United Phosphorous Ltd. Vs. A.K. Kanoria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom97; 2002(4)ALLMR396; 2003(1)BomCR299; 2002(4)MhLj358
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard Shri S. Suvarna instructed by DSK Legal for the plaintiff, Shri Mr. Prakash Chande instructed by H. V. Chande for the defendant and Shri P. V. Shah, Advocate appearing amicus curiae. 2. When this matter came up for hearing before Hon'ble S. A. Bobde, J. on 2-5-2002, he was pleased to request P. V. Shah, Advocate to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae, Shri Shah ably assisted this Court. I record my deep appreciation of the able assistance rendered by Shri P. V. Shah, Advocate. 3. Facts : In summary suit no. 4600 of 1996 filed by the plaintiff a money decree was passed against the defendant. The plaintiff has filed the present Chamber Summons for an order of this Court requiring the defendant to file an affidavit as provided under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 41 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, disclosing the assets held by him. The Chamber Summons was filed without filing an application under Order XXI, Rule 11, (commonly known as an 'Execution Petition' or a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »