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.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT433Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The notices issued to the appellant proposed recovery of customs duty short paid on quantities of crude oil that the appellant imported, on the ground that various elements such as cost of transportation, port expenses which ought to have formed part of the assessable value in terms of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules had not been included. In its replies, the importer claimed that the goods, which were initially provisionally assessed had in fact correctly finally assessed, and gave details relating to the entries on the basis of which the short levy is alleged indicating payment to be made. The importer was subsequently heard by the Commissioner. In his order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed part of the duty alleged to be short levied in the notice and also imposed penalty.3. The Commissioner's order in paragraph 35 records the facts leading to the issue of the notice, the replies filed etc. The findings begin in paragraph 35. In that paragraph he says ...
Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT200Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to the goods imported by the appellant to the benefit of exemption contained in Notifications 35/90, 181/90 and 36/90. These notifications grant exemption respectively basic duty of customs, auxiliary duty and additional duty of customs to coke containing not more than 0.035% phosphorous.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector has concluded that the goods that the appellant imported was not coke but were semi coke and hence not entitled to the exemption.3. The contention of the appellant has been and continues to be, that there is no distinction in terms of technical characteristic or chemical between coke and semi coke. The distinction is only commercial. The substance imported by the appellant did satisfy the condition in the notification with regard to phosphorous contents and therefore the exemption ought to have been granted. The McGraw Hill Dictionary of Science and Technology and Condensed Chemical ...
N.T. Kate, Insurance Inspector, E.S.i. Corpn. Vs. Yogendra Swarup Agar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)497; [2003(96)FLR393]; (2003)ILLJ406Bom; 2003(1)MhLj145
The case dealt with the acquittal of the accused in respect of offences under Section 85(a) of the Employees State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948- The insurance inspector filed an appeal, against the order of acquittal, stating that the acquittal was not justified on the ground of non-mentioning of the amounts in the notice or complaint or the sanction order of the sanctioning authority - The appeal was allowed and the acquittal was set aside - Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, it was found that, there was no strict compliance within the time, but thereafter, on demand of the department, entire amount claimed had been paid with interest and damages by the respondents - The accused was convicted under Sections 85(d) and 85(e), with 85(2) of the E.S.I. Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default R.I. for 7 days - The Court dismissed rest of the appeals as the respondents had complied with the amnesty scheme and the prosecution should not have proceeded ag...
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and ors. Vs. Baban Nath ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR680; (2003)2BOMLR130; 2003(1)MhLj63
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a statutory corporation established under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are officers of the Corporation. Hereinafter they will be collectively referred to as 'the petitioners'. They are aggrieved by the order dated 17-8-1993 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Nasik in Complaint (ULP) No. 460 of 1989 filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 28 read with Section 30 and Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (for short MRTU and PULP Act). The complaint of the respondent was concerning denial of promotion to him from 1973 onwards at every stage. He alleged the charge of unfair labour practices of favouritism and discrimination regardless of merits. He also alleged the unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act complaining that the petitioners did not implement the ...
Ashok Kumar Bhagchand Wardhani Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)33; 2003BomCR(Cri)511; 2003(1)MhLj131
R.S. Mohite, J. 1. This is an appeal seeking to quash the judgment and order dated 23-4-1998 passed by the Special Judge, Bhandara in Special Criminal Case No. 4/91 by which the accused has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and is sentenced to suffer R. I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer R. I. for three months.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are as follows:That, the complainant Girdhari Nago Thakre was a resident of village Virli Khurd, and was an agriculturist. On 3-4-1988 the complainant Girdhari made an application in the name of his father in the office of M.S.E.B. for getting electric supply upto his well. In connection with this application he had been to village Sarandi and had met the accused who was a Junior Engineer in M.S.E.B. on 2 to 3 occasions, but was given evasive answers. Later on the accused informed him that he would not issue a demand form un...
Prabhudas Narayan Gedam and ors. Vs. Municipal Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR624; 2003(2)BomCR301; 2003(1)MhLj275
S.A. Bobde, J. 1. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 8-8-2002 by which the learned Additional District Judge, Chandrapur, declined to grant interim injunction to the petitioners restraining the respondent/Municipal Council from acting on the notice for eviction served upon them under Section 179(5) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.3. The petitioners approached the Civil Court. The learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Bhadrawati, found that the petitioners to be trespasser and having no right to occupy the land. On the application of well settled principles of grant or refusal of injunction, the learned Civil Judge refused injunction to the petitioners. The petitioners were found to have made random encroachment on the side of the road causing inconvenience and hardship to the public. The petitioners then carried an appeal to the Court of District Judge, Ch...
Krishnaji Ganesh Vaidya Since Deceased by His Heirs Chintamani @ Sham ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR757; 2003(1)BomCR738; (2003)2BOMLR213; 2003(1)MhLj396
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. All these writ petitions can be disposed of together by this common judgment.2. Writ Petition No. 3626 of 1983 has been filed by the Head-tenant(s), whereas the remaining writ petitions have been filed by the persons who were inducted by the Head-tenant(s) and were occupying the respective suit premises as sub-tenants at the relevant point of time. The respondents in all these writ petitions are landlords. They had instituted suit for possession of the suit premises inter-alia on the ground of unlawful subletting by the Head-tenant. That suit has been decreed by the Appellate Court as against the present petitioners.3. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners in the group of writ petitions (except writ petition No. 3626 of 1983) were inducted as sub-tenants prior to 1-2-1973 by the petitioner(s) in Writ Petition No. 3626 of 1983 who are the Head tenant(s). It cannot be disputed that by virtue of Amendment of 1987, all such cases of unlawful subletting have be...
Shraddha Associates and Anr. Vs. St. Patrick's Town Co-operative Housi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR814; 2003(2)MhLj219
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The facts in brief, relevant for decision in the matter, are that the respondent No. 1 has filed a suit for a declaration and injunction being R.C. Suit No. 126 of 1995 against the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of the property bearing Survey No. 121/1, situated at Hadapsar, Pune. The respondent No. 1 filed an application for interim relief being Exhibit-5 which was rejected by order dated 3-1-1996. Appeal carried against the same also came to be rejected by order dated 22-1-1997. The petitioners thereafter filed a written statement raising various defences, including the point relating to bar of limitation. The issues, including the issue regarding bar of limitation were framed on 1-10-2001. The petitioners thereafter filed an application dated 12-6-2001 under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for the s...
Tarabai Kamanna Bande Vs. the State of Maharashtra (Notice to Be Serve ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR928
A.S. Aguiar, J.1. This is an appeal by the accused in Sessions Case No. 85 of 1986 against the order of conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the I.P. Code passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur vide order dated 3.1.1987.2. The said order of conviction is impugned, inter alia, on the grounds, that, the Trial Court failed to appreciate and consider the evidence of the child witness Smita (P, W. 20); that there was no sufficient motive on the part of accused to have caused the death of her daughter-in-law Vanita; that the dying declaration of deceased Vanita (Exh. 24) is unbelievable as she was unconscious and it was not possible for her to have made the dying declaration.3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that deceased Vanita was married to the eldest son of accused, Baswaraj Bande in the month of May, 1985 and since then she was living in the matrimonial house at Solapur with her husband. The family of the husband of the deceased comprised of his father, mot...
Indian Card Clothing Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT665Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are a 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU) and they had manufactured TOPs falling under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. They stopped the manufacturing activity w.e.f. 25-4-1994 and they also stopped the exports from July, 1994. For manufacture and export of these goods, they had imported capital goods during the period from May, 1990 to June, 1992 by availing the exemption under Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-81 as amended. The appellants had also executed a Bond with the Customs authorities and had given an undertaking to the effect that the Unit having failed to carry out their export obligation, is liable to pay duty on the capital goods which were brought without payment of duty, availing exemption under Notification No. 13/81-Cus. available to a 100% EOU. Therefore, they were issued a Show Cause Notice dated 14-2-1996 by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division III...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »