Mumbai Court July 2002 Judgments
Shri Mangesh Tanu Solkar and Shri Machindra @ Vijay Jagannath Hajare V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)78
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties incontext with the evidence on record as well as thejudgment which has been assailed by these appeals.Both these appeals are disposed of by a commonorder as they arise out of the same Sessions Case.2. Both the appeals are hereby assailingthe correctness, propriety and legality of thejudgment and order passed by the AdditionalSessions Judge, Gr. Mumbai in Sessions Case No.1105 of 1992 by which they have been convicted andsentenced as mentioned hereinbelow.3. Appellant Machindra @ Vijay Hajare hasbeen convicted for the offence punishable underSection 392 of IPC and has been sentenced toundergo RI for seven years and appellant MangeshSolkar has been convicted for the offencepunishable under Section 392 read with Section 397of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI forseven years.4. The prosecution case in brief is thatthe PW Kirit Kothari had collected four packets ofdeluxe variety of diamonds worth Rs. 80 lacs forselling it to a prosp...
Tag this Judgment!Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR365; 2003(153)ELT528(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The facts in this writ petition have brought on record the disturbing state of affairs in the Excise Department. It is seen that against an order-in-original passed by an Assistant Collector of Excise, two conflicting orders in appeal are passed by the same Collector of Excise (Appeals) for reasons best known to him. No action is taken by the superior officers when they came to know of it and on the top of it, even in the High Court the information required is produced most reluctantly, obviously with a view that no serious action is taken against the concerned officers.2. Mr. Parekh has appeared for the Petitioner assessee. Mr. Chaudhari appears for the Respondents, i.e. Union of India and the Excise Officers.3. The 1st Petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of textiles. The 2nd Petitioner, one Shri Rameshwarlal Saboo is the Company Secretary of the 1st Petitioner. This petition is concerning the issue of proper classification of a certain fa...
Tag this Judgment!Purnima Jaitly Vs. Ravi Bansi Jaisingh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: II(2004)BC129
D.G. Karnik, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration in the suit is whether the suit is maintainable as a summary suit2. The facts as pleaded in the plaint may be briefly state thus :The plaintiff knew the defendant for 10 years. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff advanced to the defendant a friendly loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 7th December, 1995 for which the defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of 21% p.a. The loan was repayable by 31st December, 2000. The defendant paid interest to the plaintiff at the agreed rate up to 30th September, 1997 but thereafter failed to pay further interest and also failed to repay the principal sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Plaintiff therefore filed the suit for recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. Admittedly there is no written agreement between the parties regarding the loan nor has the defendant executed a bill of exchange, a hundi or a pro...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra, Through Collector Vs. Krantikumar Ramaji Waghmar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR706; 2003(1)BomCR158
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This first appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 23rd February, 1999 of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhandara, in a group of references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act). 3. The respondent was the owner of land bearing Gat No. 179 to the extent of 2.02 hectares, out of which, a total extent of 0.73 hectares land came to be acquired for the purpose of the Indira Sagar Canal. The lands are situated at Mauza Korambi in the District of Bhandra. A notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 5th January, 1990 and the declaration under section 6 came to be issued on 6th February, 1991. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made his Award on 31st March, 1992 and while granting compensation adjudged the market value of the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per hectare. By the imp...
Tag this Judgment!Kashirao S/O Kisan Lahale (In Jail) and ors. Vs. the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)419; (2003)105BOMLR877
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellants herein were charged under Sections 302 read with Sections 147, 148, 149, 452 of the Indian Penal Code and were also charged independently under Sections 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court convicted the accused/appellant No. 1 herein and accused Nos. 3 to 7 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452 read with Sections 149, 307 read with Section 149 and also under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and so far as the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, they were convicted for three years for having committed an offence under Sections 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The original accused No. 2 Mohan s/o Kashinath Lahale had died during the pendency of the trial and, therefore, the trial against him has abated In view of his death. Appellant No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeev Kedia Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT197Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For reasons recorded below we waive pre-deposit of the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed upon the applicant who is the Director of M/s. Jai Bhagawati Impex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Wescon Exports Pvt. Ltd., and proceed to take up the appeal itself for hearing with the consent of both sides.2. The case of the department is that M/s. Jai Bhagawati Impex Pvt.Ltd., and M/s. Wescon Exports Pvt. Ltd., imported marble in blocks and slabs in huge quantities from Italy and deliberately did not clear the same for long period after their importation with the intention of cornering the goods through auction at a much reduced price of uncleared cargo. The Commissioner has absolutely confiscated the goods imported by these two companies and imposed a penalty upon the common Director of both companies.3. The appellant does not challenge the confiscation but submits that in the absence of any notice to the importers, namely, the two companies of which he is the Director, no penalty can be imposed upon him ...
Tag this Judgment!Stellar Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT388Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides for some time on the stay application, I found that it was possible to hear the appeal itself therefore after waiving the pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 92,400/- imposed for contravention of Section 76 and Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for late payment of tax as well as for late filing of Service Tax Returns, I proceed to hear the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the business of "Air Travel Agent". As per Section 70(1) of Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994, they were required to file their return in Form ST-3 for the quarter ending September, 1997, December, 1997, March, 1998, September, 1998 and March, 1999 within the stipulated period. Since they failed to do so show cause notice was issued proposing penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who imposed a penalty of Rs. 87,800/- under Section 76, and Rs. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Shakti Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT659Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is filed by a CHA questioning the legality of the order suspending his CHA licence in terms of Regulation 21(2) of the CHALR, 1984. The reasons as specified in the order are as below : "Whereas investigation conducted in a case against M/s. Siddhanath Shipping, Shed No. 69, CPWD type, Sector No. 1, KASEZ Gandhidham, an exporter, prima facie indicate that Shri Shailesh B. Bhagat, Power of Attorney Holder of M/s. Shakti Enterprise (CHA), 3, Jayant Chambers, 1st floor, Plot No. 275/12B, Gandhidham holding CHA Licence No. KCH/R/11/90 under Regulation 10(1) of CHALR, 1984, has contravened the provisions of the Customs House Agents' Licensing Regulation, 1984. An enquiry in accordance with Regulation 23 of the CHALR, 1984 is contemplated against the above CHA for grossly mis-declaring the quantity and quality of the export cargo in the shipping bill No. 1857/22-1-2002 filed by this CHA and signed by Shri Shailesh B. Bhagat, Power of Attorney Holder of the CHA firm with an int...
Tag this Judgment!Marathwada Vidyut Prakalp and Vidyut Kamgar, Karmachari Union, Parli V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)1BOMLR173; [2003(96)FLR983]; (2003)ILLJ595Bom; 2003(1)MhLj281
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Marathwada Vidyut Prakalp and VidyutKamgar Karmachari Union (for short Union) is thepetitioner before us. The Union is a registeredTrade Union under the provisions of Trade UnionsAct,1926 and claims to be affiliated to Centre ofIndia Trade Union (C.I.T.U.). According to the Unionthe respondent No.2 namely Maharashtra StateElectricity Board (M.S.E.B.) runs and operatesThermal Power Station at Parli-Vaijanath and for thatit requires thousands of skilled and unskilledemployees for the work connected with coal and ashhandling, waste coal in the turbine boilermaintenance, water treatment plant, electricmaintenance, Railway Line maintenance, Oil handling,Civil maintenance and all sorts of cleaningoperations. The said work as per the Union is ofperennial nature and regular employees on permanentbasis are required to be employed but M.S.E.B. hasadopted the system of labour contractors and takework from the employees through the contractors onyear to year basis. Relying on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Murtizapur High School Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR720; 2003(1)BomCR114; 2003(2)MhLj258
P.S. Brahme, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court to question the legality, correctness and propriety of the order passed by the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, whereunder the acquisition of the land in Survey No. 17/2 situated at Murtizapur came to be cancelled. The Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati by issuing notification dated 17-7-1986 has cancelled the notification No. A. K. S.L.A.O. (G) WS-704/84 dated 20-2-1984 published on 1-3-1984. Petitioner also sought for a writ of mandamus, and direction to Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati to acquire one hectare 42 rs of land out of survey No. 17/2 situated at Murtizapur and to restore the same to the petitioner society.FACTUAL POSITION :--2. The petitioner society is running the Murtizapur High School at Murtizapur since 1936 in the building owned by the then Madhya Pradesh Government on the rental of Rs. 329/- per month and this school building is on the land situated at Murtizapur adjoining to the la...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »