Mumbai Court July 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.
Dy. Cit Vs. Trab Enterprises
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Mumbai)1093
ORDERV.D. Wakharkar, A.M.:These two appeals by the revenue raise an identical ground. They are therefore, disposed of by a common order.2. Both the appeals raise the following ground :'On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that section 80HHC(3) is amply clear to state that the benefit ought to be calculated as per that section, i.e., same ratio that the export turnover bears to the total turnover and the total turnover may include both export turnover as well as other trading activities not necessarily export. He further erred in his direction to assessing officer to calculate the benefit in the following manner:Profit of the businessxExport turnoverTotal turnover3. The-assessee is a partnership firm. Upto the assessment year 1989-90, its business comprised only of transportation of goods and material. For and from the assessment year 1990-91, they started exporting oil-seeds and extractions. Thus, for both the...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deorao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: II(2004)ACC328
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This first appeal is directed against an order dated 25.3.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, on an application for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal has allowed the application for compensation and has directed the Insurance Company, which is in appeal before this Court, to pay to the claimants an amount of Rs. 25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application until realisation of the amount. Consequential directions have been issued as regards the payment of 1/7th of the amount deposited to each of the claimants.2. Briefly stated, the facts relating to the case are that the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of no fault liability for the death of one Ranjana Deorao Patne on 9.12.1989 in the course of an accident with a truck bearing registration No. MWY 2...
Zavenir Coated Products P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC615Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to importation of goods described as "Daubert VCI Paper" that the appellant imported. The claim made by the appellant for clearance of the goods under the Open General Licence (OGL) was refused by the Custom House on the ground that the goods were consumables which required a specific licence. This finding of the Deputy Commissioner, who ordered consequential confiscation of the goods and to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh, was challenged in appeal by the importer. The Commissioner (Appeals) declined to interfere with the finding of the Deputy Commissioner that the goods were consumer goods but reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 10,000/-. Hence this appeal.2. The Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) do not dispute the claim of the appellant that the goods were in running length and were intended to be used as rust preventive, after being cut to the shapes and size requir...
i.T.C. Limited Vs. G.T.C. Industries Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR417; 2002(25)PTC341(Bom)
S.A. Bobde, J. 1. This petition challenges the order dated 19.12.1994 of the Asstt. Registrar of Trade Marks by which he has permitted the respondent to register the trade mark 'MAGNUM' in class 34 in respect of cigarettes, bidis, safety matches, cigars, smoker's articles, etc. 2. The respondent No. 1 made an application on 23.12.1987 for registration of the trade mark 'MAGNUM' for its cigarettes. Upon an advertisement for registration in part A of the register, the petitioner filed a notice of opposition on 14.5.1992. A counter was filed by the respondent No. 1 on 11.8.1992. 3. The evidence was led in the form of affidavits wherein a reference is made to the dictionary meaning of the word. A piece of evidence considered important by the petitioner was an advertisement in a Trade Mark Journal where the Registrar had while registering the label mark for CAVANDERS cigarette laid down a disclaimer for the words 'MAGNUM FILTER'. It is important to note that the disclaimer, as observed by t...
Kantilal Ravji Mehta and anr. Vs. Sayarabai Chhaganlal Kering
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR988; 2003(3)MhLj52
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Both these writ petitions can be disposed of by a common Judgment. Writ Petition No. 2670 of 1986 is filed by the tenant, whereas Writ Petition No. 2325 of 1987 is filed by the landlady (For the sake of convenience parties will be referred to as landlord and tenant respectively).2. At this stage, it is relevant to point out that originally Writ Petition No. 2670 of 1986 was filed jointly by Kantilal Ravji Mehta and Harshad Kantilal Mehta. However, Kantilal Ravji Mehta died during the pendency of the writ petition and since no steps were taken, writ petition as against him (petitioner No. 1) has been dismissed on 15-4-1999. Accordingly, the said petition survives only by Harshad Kantilal Mehta.3. Both these writ petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Pune dated 2nd April, 1986 in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1985. It is common ground that the tenant was inducted ...
Anthony @ Tony William Rosario Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj892
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The appellant is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 203 of 1993 whereby the learned Judge had convicted the appellant for offences punishable under the provisions of Section 387 of IPC and has sentenced him to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo further RI of 30 days.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.10.1991 at 3.10 p.m. complainant Kamlesh Shivaji Majethia was sitting in his cabin in his office along with his staff member sand at that time on Lakhansingh came with four unidentified persons whom Lakhansingh introduced as Pradeepbhai, etc. and told that they were members of one ill-reputed gang of under-world holding control over their Centre at Panvel. They demanded ransom of Rs. 3 lacs from them and at that time at the instructions of Pradeepbhai one Sunil whipped o...
Central Bank of India Vs. R.S.G. Agrawal Sons and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR105; 2003(1)BomCR264
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Central Bank of India, which is the appellant is these proceedings, instituted Special Civil Suit No. 52/1972 against Messrs R.S.G. Agrawal, a partnership firm and others including the partners of the firm for the recovery of the outstanding dues of the bank on account of a loan sanctioned and disbursed to the borrower. The suit was decreed on 30th July, 1977 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. By the judgment and order of the trial Court, the defendants were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,79,759.64 to the bank together with future interest at the rate of 10.5% per annum until realisation. The decree was passed against each one of the seven defendants jointly and severally. The trial Court directed that it would be open to the bank to sell by public auction the stock of Manganese Ore and Iron Ore if there was any in existence and available for sale as described in Schedule A of the plaint. The sale proceeds were directed to be credi...
G. Ramchandran (Dr.) Vs. Gandhi Bindiya Rajesh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR448; 2003(2)BomCR337
J.A. Patil, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 8-3-2002 passed in Notice of Motion No. 961 of 2002 in S.C. Suit No. 1303 of 2002 by a learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai. By the impugned order, the learned Judge granted ad interim reliefs in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 (original plaintiffs) permitting them to appear for the final internal examinations for F.Y.B.Com. and S.Y.B.Com which were due to commence from 22-3-2002 and 15-3-2002 respectively. By the same order the learned Judge also directed the respondent No. 11 (original defendant) to declare the results of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved thereby Dr. G. Ramchandran, Principal of KES's College of Arts and Commerce, Kandivali which is run by respondent No. 10 has filed this appeal.2. Respondents No. 1 to 9 who are the original plaintiffs, are the students of respondent No. 11, college which is run by respondent No. 10 society. The appellant is the Principal of the said college. During the academic...
Omprakash Adhyaprasad Singh and Etc. Vs. Commissioner of Police and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)884; 2002CriLJ4877
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Pasbola and Mr. Kocharekar for the petitioners in both these petitions respectively and learned A.P.P. for the respondents in reply thereto. Since the grounds of detention in both these petitions and the grounds of challenge are identical and similar, and since both the counsel for the petitioners have agreed, we are disposing of these petitions by this common order.2. The detention order in both these petitions is dated 14-2-2002 and the grounds of detention are of the same date. Both these petitioners are detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act.3. The petitioners have challenged their detention on various grounds. However, Mr. Pasbola and Mr. Kocharekar restricted their arguments to two grounds only and, therefore, we are disposing of these petitions on those two grounds.First ground that was raised by the petitioners was that two co-detenus Sur...
Dhanraj Sonaji Panwe and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR55
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellants were tried for murder of Kachu Pahclwan @ Lal man under Section 302 as also for destroying evidence by burning blood stained clothes under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had in all examined ten witnesses in support of the charge. The Trial Court relied upon the evidence of P.W. 4 Maniram as also P. W. 5 Mungilal and other circumstantial evidence on record including the recovery of chappals of appellant Dhanraj -one from the spot and the other from his house on which there were blood stains and recovery of blood stained shirt on the person of appellant Dhanraj at the time of his arrest. Appellants have challenged their conviction in this appeal.2. We have heard learned Advocate for appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State.3. Learned Advocate for the appellants has urged before us that the prosecution witnesses P. W. 4 Maniram and P. W. 5 Mungilal have not actually seen the assault on account of which not muc...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »