Mumbai Court August 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.
Ramchandra @ Rambhau Sopan Londhe Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)526; (2003)105BOMLR136
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 20th February, 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1993. By the said judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-i.d. to suffer R.I. for one month.2. This is a case of double murder. The appellant is convicted for the murder of Vijay Borade, a young boy of 13 years and his father Devidas Borade.3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under:-Devidas Borade (deceased) was residing at Appapada, Ambednagar, Malad, Mumbai alongwith his family members i.e., wife Sudha Borade (P.W. 7), daughter Anita Borade (P.W. 6) and his two sons Ajay (P.W. 8) and Vijay (deceased). The appellant was the neighbour of Devidas Borade.On 21.11.92 at about 8.30 p.m., Devidas Borade was sitting on the Otla of his hou...
Arun S/O Natthuji Bind Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)295; (2003)105BOMLR12
R.S. Mohite, J.1. The appellant Arun Natthuji Bind has filed this appeal for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, under the' Prevention of Corruption Act, Gondia on 25.4.1997 in Special Case No. 2/92, by which he has convicted the appellant for committing offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to, suffer S.I. for two months.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :That, P.W. 1 Parasram Bhoyar was a villager who had purchased a buffalo from Gramin Bank, Mundipar in the year 1987 under the Government Scheme. The buffalo was insured and had a ear tap bearing No. 83891. In the year 1988 the present appellant was serving as a Live Stock Development Officer in Panchayat Samittee, Goregaon. The buffalo of Parasram was unwell. Parasram who is examined as P.W. 1 admits in his...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bharat Forge Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC967Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In its order disposing of the appeal filed by Bharat Forge Ltd., the Tribunal accepted the contention of the appellant that the importer was entitled to claim benefit of the exemption contained in Notification 154/86 in respect of the item which was imported in pursuance of a contract which was registered under the Project Import Regulations, claiming benefit of assessment under Heading 98.01 of the Tariff. The application by the Commissioner contends that there was an error in this order, since it is contrary to the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd. v. Appraiser, Appraiser Dept., Custom House - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). The departmental representative contends that this judgment is binding on the Tribunal, failure to consider is a mistake apparent on the record and requires correction.2. Counsel for the respondent contends that this decision was not pointed out to the bench which decided the appeal and, therefore, failure to con...
Asia Pacific Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC791
1. When the application for dispensing with the pre-deposit came up for hearing it was agreed by both sides that the appeal itself can be disposed of in the light of certain orders by the Tribunal.2. Under impugned order dated 2.3.2002 the Commissioner has confiscated seven consignments of rough marble blocks imported by the appellant under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed redemption fine and penalty. In this appeal the appellant is challenging only quantum of fine and penalty. There is no challenge against the confiscation as the import was done in contravention of the provisions of EXIM Policy 1997-2002 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 as there was no import licence in favour of the appellant.3. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice series of orders passed by this Tribunal under similar facts and circumstances from where it is seen that this Tribunal is inclined to uphold the fine at the rate o...
Gujarat State Export Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC772Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These 13 appeals arise out of the same order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Gujarat, Ahmed-abad. These are, therefore, taken up together for disposal vide this common order.2. We have heard Shri V.S. Nankani for the appellants except the appellant Wavin Ind. Ltd. On behalf of Wavin Ind. Ltd. prayer was made for adjournment on the ground that the counsel was not available. On perusal of the facts and on hearing the counsel, we are of the opinion that no prejudice will be caused to Wavin Indl. Ltd. if their appeal is taken up for disposal at this stage without the assistance of their counsel also. We proceed to do so.3. During 1994-95, a number of imports of plastic raw materials were made by the present appellants. One of the appellants viz. M/s. Gujarat State Export Corporation were a Government of Gujarat Undertaking. They had entered into an agreement with M/s. Adani Exports Ltd., who are also the appellants before us in this group of cases for import of such raw material...
Racold Appliances Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT321Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to Modvat credit by the appellant of the duty that is shown to have been paid on the invoices issued by the dealers of the inputs. After hearing both sides, we deal with each of the grounds on which modvat has been denied, as follows: - 2. A sum of Rs. 2.21 lakhs had been denied on the ground that the invoice bore the address of the appellant's head office and not that of the factory. Counsel for the appellant says that there was only one manufacturing unit located at Pune, the head office being in Mumbai.The head office could not have taken the credit, not being a factory.Endorsement of invoices is also not permissible. The goods had been received in the appellant's factory and utilised in the manufacture.Therefore the failure, if any, is most technical and should not stand in the way. The departmental representative emphasises that the invoice is not in the name of the manufacturing unit.3. In a situation of this ki...
Calchem Inds. (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1020Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,88,904.60 and penalty of equal amount.2. The applicants commenced manufacture of excisable goods in 1994.They chose to pay the full rate of duty without benefit of any Notification. At that time Notification No. 1/93 Central Excise provided concessional rate of duty on specified products manufactured by a unit falling under the Small Industry Sector. The coverage of the Notification excluded units affiliated with the DGTD. The applicants were so affiliated. By an amendment dated 31-8-1994 vide Notification No. 125/94, the Notification No. 1/93 was amended extending the benefit thereof to the units registered with the DGTD also. The applicant filed another classification on 10-4-1994 and chose to avail the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 for the remaining period of the financial year 1994-95. They paid duty at concessional rates. Vide S.C.N. dated 9-2-1994 differential duty was demanded from the appellant in terms of th...
Bfil Finance Ltd. Vs. G. Tech Stone Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR646; 2003(1)ARBLR184(Bom); 2002(6)BomCR573; (2002)4BOMLR449; 2002(4)MhLj434
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J. 1. This appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 27th and 28th November 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge allowing the Arbitration Petition filed by the respondents thereby setting aside the majority award dated 14th June 2001 given by an Arbitral Tribunal of 3 judges. 2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows :-- The respondents are a public limited company of Chennai engaged in the business of export of stones, granite slabs, etc. The appellants are engaged in the business of finance and investments. The respondents and the appellants entered into an Agreement on 2nd February 1995 by virtue of which the respondents placed with the appellants 5,40,000 Secured Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs) and the appellants paid a sum of Rs. 5,13,00,000 (Rupees Five Crores Thirteen Lacs) to the respondents. Later on 21st September 1995 the appellants invoked Article II Clause 2.7 of the Agreement and asked the respondents to redeem the OFCDs and so...
Bhimrao Dnyanoba Patil and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom80; 2003(1)ALLMR565; 2003(3)BomCR150; (2003)1BOMLR322
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenges the order dated 4th May. 2002 passed by the lower appellate Court rejecting the application for injunction filed by the petitioners during the pendency of the Appeal filed by them against the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit. The suit was filed by the petitioners for declaration that the order passed by the respondents on 26th Nov. 1991 to be void ab initio and that the petitioners have become owners of the suit property by way of injunction to restrain the respondents from disturbing from peaceful possession over the suit property.3. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and on perusal of the record, it ts seen that it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as the supervisor by the Ex-Ruler of Kolhapur State in relation to the various properties including the suit house. The suit h...
Bhaskarrao Ramrao Vanjare and anr. Vs. Divisional Controller, Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR23; [2003(97)FLR949]
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order passed by the learned Appellate Court condoning the delay of 6 years and more in filing appeal by M.S.R.T.C., Akola challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.2. The Corporation is a public undertaking which should act responsibly in relation to public money. The reasons given for the delay are not at all acceptable to Court, nor are they substantial and sufficient reasons in the eye of law. Rights accrued under a valid decree of a Court cannot be unsettled after six years merely on the asking of a Corporation and specious cause being given, i.e. frequent transfers of its officers. In view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & another, reported in : 1997ECR785(SC) , the reasons are not sufficient. Therefore, the learned Appellate Judge committed jurisdictional error in condoning the delay. The same is liable to be corrected under section 115 o...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »