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.
Ashok Madhu Beluskar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)390; (2003)105BOMLR4
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Judgment dated 23.3.1987 in Sessions Case No. 583 of 1986.2. The charge against the accused was that on 5.8.1986 at about 8.00 a.m. he murdered his wife by name Asha by setting her ablaze after pouring of kerosene upon her. The marriage of the accused with Asha had taken place 14 to 15 years before the incident. She was residing with him and his mother and two children at Rabodi, Shivaji Nagar, Thane. The accused was unemployed and not doing any work for earning his livelihood. He was also addicted to liquor and hence there used to be quarrels.3. The incident took place on 5.8.1986. The mother of the accused was serving in mental hospital and she was not present in the home. The accused demanded Rs. 5/- from Asha for purchasing liquor and entered into a quarrel with her. When Asha refused to give this amount the accused s...
Trans Shipping Services Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT101Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applications seek stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner suspending the licences granted to each of the applicants to function as Custom House agent.2. The common charge against the applicants is that each of them sublet the licences granted to them to Govinddhar Pandey. While it is the contention of the common representative of the applicants that there is no evidence to show that the licences were sublet, we find that Pandey has, in his statement before the customs officers said that he was operating the licences of each of these applicants and given details of the payments made for this purposes. There is, therefore, prima facie, evidence of the contravention of the licensing regulation. We also note that the charges have been framed against each of the applicants under the relevant regulation and the enquiry is going on. The contention on behalf of the applicants is that the enquiry cannot proceed further, because, Pandey is under COFEPOSA detention and witnesse...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Rajesh Cotton Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)79TTJ(Mum.)202
1. These appeals of the Department have been directed against the orders of the CIT(A)-XXX, Mumbai, dt. 10th Oct., 1994, for the asst.yrs. 1989-90 and 1990- 91. The only common ground of appeal taken up by the Department for both the assessment years reads as follows : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to recalculate the interest leviable under Sections 234A, 234B and 234G of the IT Act in view of the decision in the case of Pradeep J. Mehta, vide order No. CIT(A)-XXX/AC(Inv), Cir-24(1)/Arr. IT-29(h)/1992-93 and IT-653/1993-94, dt 10th Oct., 1994. It is to be noted that the decision in the case of Pradeep J. Mehta is not accepted by the Department.2. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in cotton since the asst. yr. 1978-79. The assessee-firm has two partners (i) Kusum J. Mehta, wife of Jasubhai, and (ii) Pradeep Mehta, son of Jasubhai. The residential premises of Jasubhai D. Mehta were searched...
J.M. Baxi and Co. Vs. Deputy Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR765; 2003(1)BomCR776; 2003(90)ECC742; 2003(156)ELT961(Bom); 2002(4)MhLj823
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this petition, petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Customs Department seeking to levy penalty upon thepetitioners under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the alleged short landing of cargo.2. The facts relevant for the present petition are as follows :--At the relevant time, the petitioners were agents of foreign flag vessel 'Globe Oceanic'. The said vessel arrived at the port of Kandla in the last week of June, 1984 carrying 949.584 metric tons of Acrylonitrile Monomer in bulk for discharge at Kandla. After filing the Import General Manifest, the vessel discharged the cargo and the said vessel sailed from Kandla soon thereafter. As per the ullage report dated 30th June, 1984 taken before of discharge of the cargo, it was noticed that the total quantity discharged was 948.334 M.T. as against the quantity of 949.584 M.T. manifested in the I.G.M. Thus shortage of 1.250 M.T. noticed in the ullage report was well within the permissible limit a...
Pankaj Suryakant Lohar Vs. Mayuri Pankaj Lohar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR416; 2003(1)BomCR85; (2002)4BOMLR330; I(2003)DMC746; 2002(4)MhLj828
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.2. The applicant/defendant challenges the order dated 28-6-2002, passed by the trial Court rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the applicant on the ground of absence of territorial jurisdiction to the Court below to entertain the proceedings filed by the respondent/plaintiff.3. It is the case of the applicant that on the face of the plaint it is apparent that the applicant, who is the defendant in the suit, resides at Mumbai, beyond the territorial limits of the District of Thane. It is further case of the applicant that the pleadings in the plaint apparently disclose that the applicant and the respondent last resided together at Goregaon. It is, therefore, sought to be contended on behalf of the applicant that the pleadings nowhere disclose territorial jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings by any Court within the District of Thane, where the proceedings ...
G.P. Dave and Sons (Shipping) Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR668; 2002(6)BomCR693; (2002)4BOMLR832; 2003(156)ELT824(Bom); 2002(4)MhLj906
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the orders passed by the Customs Authority under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, levying penalty amounting to Rs. 6,51,298.26 on account of the short landing of the cargo.2. The facts having bearing of the subject matter of the present petition, are as follows :At the relevant time, the petitioners were the agents of a Foreign Flag Vessel 'FUJIHARU MARU'. The said vessel arrived at the Port of Kandla in November 1985 to discharge cargo of raw Naphtha consigned to Indian Oil Corporation Limited. As per the bill of lading, the quantity of raw Naphtha loaded at Iraq Port was 4325 m.t. After loading the cargo, independent surveyors had measured the quantity on board the vessel at the load port of Basra, Iraq by Ullages and certified that the quantity on board was only 4201 m.t. The Master of the vessel, therefore, had lodged a formal protest with the Iraqi Government, being the consignor stating the...
Dnyaneshwar S/O Sheku Tarde Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR694; 2002(4)MhLj612
B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. Rule. 2. The respondents waive service. 3. Rule is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 4. The petitioner is the resident of village Palashi in Taluka Kannad of district Aurangabad. He is an agriculturist. He claims that he had purchased agricultural land admeasuring 37 r located in Gut No. 281 of said village from Uttamrao Bhaurao Thote and Ramrao Sarjerao Thote by a sale-deed dated 1-6-1979. The Government of Maharashtra sought to acquire some land from village Palashi for Anjana Palashi Medium Project and therefore, notification underSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued on 10-10-1993. Such a notice was also served on the petitioner in respect of the agricultural land in Gut No. 281 admeasuring 37 r. The land acquisition proceedings were concluded in an Award passed on 17-6-1997. It appears that immediately thereafter the petitioner approached the Collector, Aurangabad and submitted a representation claiming the amount of compensation as own...
Varun Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR665; 2002(6)BomCR718; (2002)4BOMLR421; 2003(154)ELT34(Bom); 2003(1)MhLj118
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Customs Department levying penalty of Rs. 36,214/-under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 on account of short landing of cargo.2. The brief facts having bearing of the subject matter of the present petition are as follows :At the relevant time the petitioners were owners of the vessel namely 'ARYA DOOT' which had called at the port of Kandla in the last week of April, 1976 carrying on 20,171,79 m.t. of High Speed Diesel (HSD) for discharge at Kandla. On arrival of the vessel at Kandla and prior to the discharge of the cargo, the material on board the vessel was measured by Ullage and as per the ullage measurement report prepared by the Surveyor/representative of the petitioner and representative of the Receiver/consignee, the quantity in the vessel was 20092.367 M.T. which is short of 79.427 M.T. from the manifested quantity. The said shortage is within the permissible limits. Thereafter,...
South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. Vs. Additional Collector of Cu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR707; (2002)4BOMLR348; 2003(1)MhLj393
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Customs Authorities, wherein penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 has been levied upon the petitioners for the alleged shortlanding of the cargo.2. The brief facts having bearing of the subject matter of the present petition, are as under:The petitioners at the relevant time were the agents of the Foreign Flag Vessel namely 'SCHELPWIJK' which had called at the Port of Kandla on 7th January, 1974 for discharging 16,048.509 m.t. of superior Kerosene and 2182.475 m.t. of Aviation Gasolene. On filing Import General Manifest (IGM), the vessel started discharging the cargo under the supervision of the concerned authorities. After completing discharge of the cargo, the ship sailed from Kandla Port. As per Ullage measurement, the quantity of Aviation Gasolene on board the vessel was 2149.00 m.t. indicating an alleged shortage of 32.992 m.t.3. By a show cause notice dated 18th December, ...
Jindal Iron and Steel Co. Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(154)ELT380(Bom)
1. Heard rival contentions. 2. The petition is directed against the enforcement order dated 30th August, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, enforcing the bond and order dated 29th May, 1989 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The Appellate Authority refused to rely upon the certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise and the Chartered Accountant of the Petitioner on the ground that the same was produced after a gap of more than two years from the date of importation of the scrap. These certificates were doubted by the Appellate Authority. Prima facie, the doubt sought to be raised by the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be ill-founded. However, we feel that the Appellate Authority ought to give reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to produce other material in support of their contentions, so as to prove their case. 3. In this view of the matter, we set aside both the orders of the authorities below and remand the proceedings to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »