Mumbai Court August 2002 Judgments
Mr. Rashidi Ally Chigale and Mr. Faru Tahim Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)117; 2003BomCR(Cri)1129
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. Shri Tiwari, for the appellants. ShriShringapure, A.P.P. for the prosecution. Both of themhave been heard at length in context with evidence onrecord at the time of final hearing in deciding thisappeal. Whereby the appellants are assailing correctness,propriety and legality of the judgment, order ofconviction and sentence embodied in the judgment passedby the Special Judge for Greater Bombay in N.D.P.S. CaseNo. 88 of 1995. 2. Few facts need to be mentioned for unfolding theprosecution case and the allegations which were madeagainst the appellants which initiated the trial. On18/3/1995 at about 11 P.M. P.W.2 V.N. Godbole was doinghis duty at Sahar Airport and at that time PakistanAirline Staff Members pointed out one passenger, who wasto board flight P.K.-277 for Karachi and was to fly at11.50 P.M. At that time Godbole's superior Officers,A.C.P. Bodhawade and Sr. P.I. Gaikwad who weregazetted officers were with him. The person who waspointed out by the Pakistan Airlin...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Sayyedlal Gani Syyed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR720; [2003(96)FLR389]; (2003)ILLJ491Bom
A.P. Deshpande, J. 1. As the same judgment and Award passed by the Judge, 2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Reference IDA No. 56 of 1993 dated December 27, 1999 is challenged in both these petitions, the said petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Writ Petition No.717 of 2001 is filed by the State of Maharashtra, through the Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer') and the Writ Petition No.4759 of 2001 is filed by one Sayyedlal Gani Sayyed (hereinafter referred to as the 'employee'). The Labour Court by its judgment and award partly allowed the Reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nashik Division, Nashik and thereby granted reinstatement with continuity of service to the employee and rejected his claim for payment of full back wages. The employer challenges the order to the extent it grants reinstatement with continuity of service to the employee a...
Tag this Judgment!Gaur Chandra Basu and anr. Vs. Ruchira Ashok Sonde and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR266; 2003(1)BomCR438
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and decree passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Thane dated 17th August, 1991, in Civil Appeal No. 236 of 1988. The premises in question is flat No. 4 consisting of 3 rooms and kitchen in Vasant Bahar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. at Maharshi Karve Road, Thane. This flat was purchased in the joint names of the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) and her mother. The petitioners were inducted in the said premises as tenants on monthly basis. The respondent gave demand notice to the petitioners on 6th May, 1981 claiming arrears of rent and also terminating the tenancy. Thereafter, respondent filed suit in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane being R.C.S. No. 1213/1981 for possession of the suit premises on the ground of arrears of rent, reasonable and bona fide requirement, acquisition of suitable alternative residential a...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Pandurang Prabhale Since Deceased by His Heirs and ors. Vs. Vi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR235; 2003(1)BomCR638
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and decree dated July 6, 1991 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Satara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 447 of 1988. The premises in question are situated in Municipal House No. 671 of Guruwar Path, Satara. The respondent No. 1 purchased the said property some time in the year 1977 with a view to enjoy the same for the personal use and occupation. It is on that premise notice was issued to the original petitioner-tenant terminating his tenancy in the year 1980. In spite of that notice petitioner did not vacate the suit premises. As a consequence of which the respondent No. 1 instituted a suit before the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide need and requirement for himself and for his family members. Besides that ground the suit for possession was also instituted on the ground of tenant having caused dama...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR18; (2003)105BOMLR133
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner Company is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10th August, 1998 passed by the Superintendent of Stamps, Mumbai impounding the instrument submitted by it on the ground that it was not duly stamped and the petitioner was ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 8,16.000/- leviable as stamp duty on the instrument under question. The authority had also directed the petitioner to pay penalty specified in the order. Further threat was also issued to the petitioner that on their failing to pay the said amount with penalty, the same would be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 46 of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958.2. The facts in the present case are in a very narrow compass. The petitioner Company purchased the immovable property described in the petition at the auction purchase price of Rs. 17,75,000/- The office of the Tax Recovery, Ward No. 22 had also issued an order of confirmation of auction sale of the said property certifying that the aforesaid im...
Tag this Judgment!Excel Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Mumbai)840
ORDERB.L. Chmber, A.M.The assessee is a public limited company and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of chemicals and fertilizers. As many as 17 grounds have been raised in this appeal. The same are discussed and disposed of as under. Ground No. 1 reads as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the ground relating to addition of Rs. 5,50,676 to the closing stock on account of mode ' at credit and in directing the Dy. CIT to make verification and take consequential action.'2. At the time of hearing, this ground was not pressed. The same is, accordingly dismissed.3. Ground No. 2 reads as under'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of rural development expenses amounting to Rs. 2,15,000. In upholding the said disallowance, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the said expenses were eligible f...
Tag this Judgment!Cc Vs. Shailesh Damodia
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)(106)LC319Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above application has been filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) Mumbai for stay of operation of order of the Tribunal No. C-II/3418/WZB/2001 dtd. 26.11.2001 certified on 19.12.2001 in Appeal No. C/1102/2001.2. The present stay application has been filed in the following circumstances. A Show Cause Notice dtd. 3.4.2002 was issued to the respondent before us in respect of smuggling of AMIKACIN SULPHATE on the basis of search conducted in a Ghatkopar premises and resulted in the proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai on demand. The Show Cause Notice dated 3.4.2001 was issued for proposing to confiscate 250 Kg. Streptomycin Sulphate under the provision of Section 111 (d) of Customs Act and to impose penalty under 112(G) of the Custom Act.3. The Commissioner of Custom (EP) by his order dtd. 17.8.2001 confirmed the said Show Cause Notice and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs on the respondent and another noticee called Hasmukh Parekh. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Sensotherm (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT648Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides for some time, we found that it was possible to hear and dispose of the appeals themselves on the point of contravention of principles of natural justice. Hence, after waiving the pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs. 55,07,696/-and staying recovery thereof, we take up the appeals themselves for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25/26-5-98, the assessee's factory, who is cable manufacturer, was searched by the officers of Central Excise (Preventive) and certain quantity of cables found lying unaccounted for in the factory was seized. Statements of the two Directors who are appellants before us were also recorded.Investigations revealed that the assessee company had removed excisable goods manufactured by them under 95 parallel set of Central Excise invoices showing deposit/payment of Central Excise Duty on the invoices when no duty was actually paid/debited and consigned to the different, customers. The clearance...
Tag this Judgment!M. Angamuthu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ407CAT
1. The applicant is aggrieved that the respondents are not granting four additional incentive increments to him on passing the ICWAI final examination and not stepping up of his pay on par with similarly situated Shri K. Jawahar, his junior. He is thus challenging the order of the respondents dated 27.11.2000 whereby his representation was rejected.2. The applicant joined the erstwhile Posts and Telegraph Department as postal clerk in 1968 and after various promotions, he came as Senior Accounts Officer in 1997 to MTNL, Mumbai and is working since 13.8.1997 as such. In between the applicant had also been promoted on temporary and ad hoc basis for 180 days in June, 1995 as Assistant Chief Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer intermittently on various spells.3. While so working, he had passed the intermediate examination of ICWAI held in June, 1990. As per the O.M. dated 3.8.1999 of the Department of Telecom, he was granted two advance increments. According to the aforesaid O.M. ...
Tag this Judgment!Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR767; 2003(1)BomCR672; (2003)1BOMLR130; 2003(151)ELT499(Bom); 2003(1)MhLj57
V.C. Daga, J. 1. The petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of lifts and in the business of erection and installation of elevators and escalators ('lifts' for short). 2. The petition is directed against the communication dated 20th August 1987 passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, respondent No. 1 seeking to assess excise duty on the basis of contract value recovered by petitioner from their customers. 3. The aforesaid order is subject matter of challenge being contrary to and wholly irreconcilable with the earlier order of the Collector of Central Excise(Appeals) in petitioner's own case and another order in revision passed by the Government of India again, in the case of petitioner itself. It is further contended that the said order of the Superintendent is also contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Otis Elevator v. State of Maharashtra 24 STC 525. 4. The petitioner, as already stated above, carries on business of erection and installation of lif...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »