Mumbai Court September 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.
Navbharat Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT109Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 filed classification declaration No. 1/99-2000 declaring 12 products manufactured by them. It was found that they were clearing bituminised waterproof paper of various sizes to M/s. Wimco but had described the same as "unassembled paper packing container intended for the packing of match sticks". Show cause notices were issued proposing classification of the product above mentioned under CETA sub-heading 4807.10 attracting duty @ 16% ad valorem with effect from March, 1999 onwards instead of CETA sub-heading 4819.11 at nil rate of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the differential duty demand and also imposed penalty. Aggrieved by the adjudication orders dated 30-3-2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner and 28-6-2001 passed by the Assistant Commissioner the assessees preferred appeals and stay applications to the Commissioner (Appeals),...
Sharda Narayan Bhongade Vs. Surendra Jagmohan Pali and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)338; 2002(4)MhLj865
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. The petitioner has sent a letter dated 6-2-2002 to this Court which was converted into a Criminal Writ Petition. Initially on 4-3-2002, the learned A.P.P. had taken two weeks time to take instructions in the said matter and an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Government on 16-3-2002. On 18-3-2002, Mrs. Maldhure, Advocate was appointed in this case to represent the petitioner and a direction was given to the office to supply all the relevant papers to the learned Advocate. Mrs. Maldhure, thereafter took instructions on behalf of the petitioner and filed an affidavit stating the grievances of the petitioner on oath which was solemnly affirmed on 5-4-2002. Thereafter, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and respondents were heard and Rule was granted in this petition and it was made returnable in the second week of June, 2002. 2. In spite of the notice issued by this Court, the respondent No. 1 who is the concerned Police Officer and who had in...
Rajendra B. Oza Vs. Air India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR660; (2003)2BOMLR113; [2003(96)FLR485]; 2003(1)MhLj19
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 1-2-1994 passed by the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in Approval Application No. NTB-13 of 1992 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 granting approval to the action taken by the respondent-employer for dismissal from employment with effect from 13-2-1972.2. The petitioner had joined the respondent establishment as a Junior Security Assistant in 1982. In the year 1986 he was promoted as Senior Security Assistant. It appears that he remained absent from duty unauthorisedly and without any leave for a period of 38 days. He was served with a charge sheet on 2-2rl990, alleging the aforesaid act of misconduct for remaining absent without leave, it appears that the said clause in the said charge sheet was formally amended on 1-10-1990 on account of certain events which took place before the Delhi High Court. However, the foundation of the charge sheet remained the same i.e. 38 ...
Ramchandra Narayan Rao Vs. Sub-divisional Officer, M.M. Project and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR656; (2003)2BOMLR163; 2003(1)MhLj36
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner, the most unfortunate creature, who is a called citizen under our Constitution and an integral and inseparable constituent of the 'We the People' is being tossed ruthlessly from one Court to another Court. Not by a private employer but by the authorities of our welfare State. In the year 1990 the State has taken away from him his land approximately admeasuring eight acres, the only source of his livelihood. He is now put in the category of Project Affected Persons, vide letter dated 10-4-2000 addressed by the District Rehabilitation Officer. No doubt he might have been given compensation in accordance with law but in my opinion compensation is no substitute for the land. The compensation gets evaporated soon while the land continues as motherland - source of livelihood for generations. To help such persons our welfare State has provided for giving jobs to all such persons whose land was or is taken by the State for different projects and for different p...
Purshottam S/O Vishwanath Trivedi Vs. Zilla Parishad and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR665; 2003(2)BomCR307; 2003(1)MhLj437
R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner claims that he was confirmed before 31-12-1965 on account of which his age of superannuation should to 60 years, but he was retired from service with effect from 1-1-1988. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court in the month of June 1990 seeking to challenge the retirement with effect from 1-1-1988.2. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of both sides. Learned advocate for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Susheela Sudhakar Pathak v. The Chief Executive Officer, ZP, Buldana and Ors., Writ Petition No. 510 of 1996, decided on 19th March 1998, has submitted before us that the case of the petitioner is covered by the said judgment and that the petitioner's retirement/superannuation should have been on completion of 60 years instead of 58 years when he was ordered to be superannuated.3. On the other hand, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 urged before us that the judgment of the Divi...
Roshan Dinshaw Karai and anr. Vs. Mrs. Sangita L. Mankani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom105; 2003(1)ALLMR948; 2003(2)BomCR607; 2003(1)MhLj594
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit. It is the case of the plaintiffs that original defendant No. 1 since expired and defendant No. 2 approached them for a loan which the plaintiffs agreed to advance on the condition that as a security, the defendants should create a mortgage. Accordingly, the plaintiffs advanced a sum of Rs. 80,000/- by cheque in favour of defendant No. 3. The amount was to carry interest at 14% per annum compounded in the case of default of payment of interest which was to be payable monthly. The case of the plaintiffs is that on 23-2-1979 the defendants deposited with the plaintiffs the title deeds of the property with an intent to create an equitable mortgage. By an Indenture of Mortgage dated 23-2-1979, the property was mortgaged by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- on 22-2-1980. He further agreed to pay interest on the said sum of Rs. 80,000/- at the rate of 14% per annum free ...
Tata Tea Limited Vs. Suruchi Tea Company and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR252; 2004(28)PTC83(Bom)
ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. This appeal under Section 109 of the Trade andMerchandise Marks Act, 1958 is directed against a decision rendered on 14thAugust, 2000 by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. By the order impugned inthese proceedings the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks has allowed theapplication filed by the first respondent ('the respondent') for the registration ofhis trade mark in Class 30 of the Fourth Schedule to the rules framed under theAct. The respondent had applied for the registration of his trade mark in relationto tea, which has been allowed by the impugned order.2. On 20th October, 1989 the respondent applied to the competent authority under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 for the registration of a label mark 'SURUCHI' (in part A of the Register and under Class 30 of the Fourth Schedule). The respondent claimed user in respect of the mark for which registration was applied since 11th November, 1985. On 16th June, 1995, the application came to be adver...
Sitabai Anant Deshpande and ors. Vs. Rau Santu Deuskar Since Deceased ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR354
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. These writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India take exception to the orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur dated 10-3-1983 in M.R.T. KP-15/1982 and 16/1982 respectively. The petitioner herein claims to be the landlady in respect of the land bearing Survey Nos. 87 and 89 both situated at Village Honyali, Taluka Ajara, District Kolhapur. The respondents in Writ Petition No. 4127/1983 were tenants in respect of lands bearing Survey No. 87, whereas the respondents in the companion Writ Petition No. 4294/1983 were tenants in land bearing Survey No. 89 referred to above. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's predecessor, her husband, was the landlord in respect of both these lands and that he was a certificated landlord, as certificate was issued in his favour under section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. He died some time in 1971. After his death the name of his son was mutated in the record as Kart...
ito Vs. Royal Diam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Mumbai)268
ORDERM.K. Chaturvedi V.P.This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-XIX, Mumbai and relates to the assessment year 1998-99.2. The following three grounds taken in this appeal are reproduced here as under :'1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that a sum of Rs. 2,76,900 being interest received from bank should be treated as income from profit and gains of business, and not income from 'other sources' as held by the assessing officer.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that it is the net interest which is to be deducted to arrive at the 'profits of the business' though the Explanation clause (baa) to section 80HHC provides reduction of 90 per cent of receipt,3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing o...
Transpek Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: (2006)STR167
1. The delay in filing the appeals by M/s. Puriflair India Pvt. Ltd. and Dinesh Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. is condoned in view of the explanation offered by the applicants that time was required by them for collecting details from goods transport operators in order to work out their tax liability and in view of the fact that the same explanation has been accepted by the Tribunal in the case of Videocon Narmada Electronics Ltd. v. CCE, Baroda (Order No. CI/2540/WZB/2002, dated 14-8-2002.) 2. Now I take up the stay applications for hearing. All the above captioned applications for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts (as per Annexure A) arise out of the different Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1944, directing all the applicants to work out service tax payable by them during the period from 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 and pay the same along with the interest till date of the payment of the service tax at the prescribed rate ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »