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.
Husen Aba Bahadur Deceased by His Heirs Anawar Husen Bahadur and ors. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR178; 2003(1)BomCR627; (2003)2BOMLR630; 2002(4)MhLj786
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, Camp at Kolhapur, dated August 2, 1988 in Revision Application No. MRT-KP- 119/84.2. The petitioners herein are the successors in interest of the deceased Husen Aba Bahadur who was the tenant in respect of land bearing R. S. No. 60/2-A, situate at Aurwad, taluka Hatkanangale, dist, Kolhapur. The petitioners predecessor was inducted as a tenant in the suit lands prior to the tillers' day and was in possession thereof in that capacity. The suit lands were originally parts of joint family property of which original respondent No. 1 Sakharam Ganesh Pujari was a member. He was, at the relevant time, serving in the armed forces. It is the case of the respondents that he became the exclusive owner of the suit lands by virtue of a partition dated 29-11-1956 between his family members. It is relevant to note that deceased Sakharam reti...
Indian Express Newspapers, (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR667; 2003(86)ECC422; 2002LC584(Bombay); 2003(1)MhLj31
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The issue raised in this petition is whether the Customs Authorities are justified in denying the benefits of exemption Notification bearing No. 114/1980 and 113/1987 available to the goods falling under Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ('C.T.A.' for short) merely because the petitioners had registered their contract to import the said goods as project import falling under Chapter 98 of the C.T.A. In other words, the issue involved is whether an item falling under Chapter 84 on account of the registration of the Contract, the said item is classifiable under Chapter 98 of the C.T.A.2. The facts having bearing on the subject matter of the present petition are as follows :--The petitioner No. 1 Company is engaged in the business of printing and publication of newspapers and periodicals in number of cities, including inter alia Bombay, Ahmedabad, Delhi and Chandigarh, etc. During the period relevant for the present petition, the petitione...
Siemens Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Mumbai)291
ORDERI.P. Bansal, J.M.:This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25-5-1993, for the assessment year 1982-83.2. The ground of appeal raised reads as follows :'The Commissioner (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner (Appeals)'I erred in confirming the order of Dy. CIT for levying interest under section 7D of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, of Rs. 1,47,457 for the short fall in the first two instalments based on the bona fide estimated taxable income for the year ended 30-9-1981. Your appellants submit that the word underestimate' signifies an estimate which is below the truth or which is at too low a rate. The question whether there was justification for the estimate or whether it was 'underestimate has to be examined with reference to the time when the estimate was filed. It is not correct to say that while making an estimate the maker should project himself into the future. If at the time when th...
Solid and Correct Engineering Works Vs. C.C. and C.E. Overruled
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC614Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These seven appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I. These are therefore taken up for disposal together vide this common order.2. M/s. Solid and Correct Engineering Works (hereinafter referred to as 'SEW') M/s. Solid Steel Plant Manufacturers (hereinafter referred to as SSPM) and M/s. Solmec Earthmovers Equipment (hereinafter referred to as 'Solmec') are partnership firms manufacturing asphalt drum mix plant and other civil construction equipment. M/s. Solex Electronic Equipment (herein after called as 'Solex') is a proprietary unit manufacturing electronic control panels. The partnership units are registered under the Central Excise law. Proprietary units availed of SSI exemption on filing due declaration. M/s. Solidmec Equipments (hereinafter called as 'Solidmec') are engaged in marketing the products of the first named three units. Shri Hasmukh V. Dodia and Shri D.V. Dodia are the partners in the first units. Smt. Kusumben ...
Naman Developers Pvt. Ltd. and anr., Vs. Municipal Corporation of Grea ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR750; 2002(6)BomCR561
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This group of seven writ petitions was heardtogether as it involved common issue. The common issuebeing: 'Whether the Assessor and Collector in the officeof Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay has actedwithout jurisdiction by fixing rateable value of landunder construction thereby not following the law laid downby the Apex Court in the The Municipal Corporation ofGreater Bombay v. M/s. Polychem Ltd., : [1974]3SCR687 or the petitioners should be relegated to thestatutory remedy of appeal under Section 217 of the MumbaiMunicipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, MMCAct,1888) and question the legality, justification and/orcorrectness of fixation of rateable value of land underconstruction before appellate forum.2. For the sake of convenience and brevity we referto the facts obtaining in Writ Petition No.2465/2001.Pursuant to the Agreement for Sale dated 29.10.1993, NamanDevelopers Private Limited (the petitioner no.1) purchasedproperty comprising of land together with...
Shivrudra Shivling Pailwan and ors. Vs. Prakash Maharudhra Pailwan and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR48; 2002(6)BomCR546; (2003)2BOMLR167; 2003(1)MhLj299
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 21st June 2002 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code.3. It is the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the suit has been filed for execution of the compromise decree in the earlier suit between the parties and therefore considering the provisions of section 47 read with Order VII, Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code the plaint is liable to be rejected.4. Referring to clauses 4 and 10 in the compromise decree passed on 19th March 1987 in Regular Civil Suit No. 24 of 1987 between the parties to the proceedings, it was sought to be contended that in terms of clause 4 the parties had agreed to enjoy in common the open space by the side of the road and had agreed not to obstruct for such enjoyment to each oth...
Govind Vithoba Kengar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)19; 2003CriLJ5066
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Miss Darshana Shah. Advocate appointed for defending the appellant and Shri K.V. Saste, A.P.P. appearing for the prosecution, have been heard in detail with reference to the evidence on record. The appellant Govind Vithoba Kengar is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in sessions trial conducted against him for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 376 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant was tried with other co-accused viz. Dinkar Kale, Anil Bhosale, Badamya Shinde, Sarjerao Bhosale. The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 376(g) of Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 395 of I.P.C...
Qazi KutubuddIn S/O HusnuddIn Vs. Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR610; 2003(2)BomCR255; 2002(4)MhLj815
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is seeking appropriate writ, order and directions for quashing and setting aside the Order dated 16-11-1987 passed by respondent No. 3 in Revision No. 7 of 1986-87 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition is as follows : The petitioner was working as Pump Operator in Municipal Council, Sindi and he filed a Revision being as revision No/ 7/1986-87 of Sindi before the respondent No. 3 under Section 318 of Maharashtra Municipalities Act. This revision was directed against the order of the Chief Officer of respondent No. 1 dated 20-3-1987 whereby the Chief Officer had passed an order promoting respondent No. 2 as cashier in the Pay Scale of Rs. 260-495/- in supersession of the claim of the petitioner. The Additional Commissioner by his order dated 16-11-1987 directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 before ...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Namdeo T. Na ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR549; (2002)4BOMLR291; [2003(96)FLR1103]; 2002(4)MhLj582
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, a statutory body and its two officers are the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 26th July 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Complaint ULP No. 570 of 1990 filed by the respondent employee under Section 28 read with Section 30 and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and PULP Act, 1971 alleging failure on the part of the petitioners to implement the award of the Labour Court dated 31st July 1990 granting reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service to the employee with effect from 17th September 1982.2. It appears that the petitioners had dismissed the said employee after completing the disciplinary proceedings against him in the charges levelled bythe petitioners. It appears that the said order of dismissal was successfully challenged by the said employee by raising an industrial dispute and by getting an award of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service ...
Nago S/O Lakhaji Nannaware and anr. Vs. Kanhu S/O Undru Madavi and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR613; 2003(2)BomCR397; 2003(1)MhLj451
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is directed against an order dated 12-7-1991 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal upholding the order of the Tahsildar directing the petitioners to restore the land purchased by them to the respondents 1 to 3. It is not necessary to go into the entire history of the case. The petitioners' father purchased the land from respondents 1 to 3 on 22-7-1964. The land admeasured 0.20 acres of agricultural land situated at mouza Mohali, Tahsil Brahmapuri, now Sindewahi in Chandrapur district.2. After certain initial proceedings, which resulted in a remand to the Tahsildar on 30-11-1988, the Tahsildar held that the petitioners' claim that they were belonging to Scheduled Tribe was not valid. The Tahsildar held that the petitioners are 'Mana' and not 'Gond Mana' which is a Scheduled Tribe. He further held that the petitioners had not converted the land to non agricultural use before 6-7-1974 and that they had converted it to non agricultural use in 1982. The T...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »