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.
Mohd. Akhtar Haji Ahmed Motiwala Vs. Commr. of Cus., Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT83Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 3-2-1994 Customs Officers examined a consignment which had arrived by Air India Flight from Singapore consigned to M/s. Zet Sun Inc. Impex at Khar, Bombay and recovered computer parts valued at Rs. 40 lakhs; which was seized under the reasonable belief that they had been smuggled into India. Enquiries revealed that the owners of the premises of the consignee were one Iftikar Shaikh and his wife Lubna Shaikh; that such premises had been given on leave and licence basis for 11 months starting from 1-12-1992 to one Yunus Yasin Shah who had floated the firm M/s. Zet Sun Inc.Impex, in partnership with one Sahil Habib Ismail. After the expiry of the lease period the premises were given on leave licence basis to the appellant herein who was running a shop in the name and style of M/s.Green Channel. Statements of the owners of the premises were recorded.2. The appellant's statement was recorded on 3rd February, 1994 under Section 108 of the Customs A...
Jay Container Services Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S.D.S. Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR541; 2003(3)BomCR163; (2003)1BOMLR421; 2003(1)MhLj771
1. This appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by a learned Single Judge on 24th July 2000 on a motion taken out by the appellants (original plaintiffs) seeking a direction to the respondent No. 1 (original defendant No. 1) to deposit an amount of Rs. 81,77,632.50 by way of prayer (a). Prayer (b) sought a direction to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,78,020/- per month. Both these prayers seek withdrawal of the amounts when deposited. The motion was rejected by the learned Single Judge by his impugned order and therefore this appeal.2. Mr. Rambhadran has appeared for the appellants and Mr. Kapadia has appeared for respondent No. 1. Though the appeal is already admitted and a motion is taken out for interim relief in the appeal, it was agreed by the counsel for both the parties that the appeal be heard finally. Accordingly we are disposing of this appeal by this order.3. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows :--The appellants are a private limited company engaged amongst others ...
Virendrabhai M. Chandalia and Amritlal M. Chandalia Vs. Mohan Kanayala ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj335
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners are hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by the Joint Civil Judge and J.M.F.c. Ulhasnagar in Criminal Case No. 66 of 1995 taking cognizance of the complaint by the Respondent No. 1 in respect of the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 500, 504, 506, 828 of IPC.3. Shri Jain submitted that there was a civil suit between the petitioners and respondent No. 1 and in the said civil proceeding, respondent No. 1 had paid a sum of Rs. 39,507/- as part payment. Shri Jain submitted that the present prosecution which has been challenged by this writ petition is the outcome of that because the respondent No. 1 wants to take revenge. he further submitted that the said prosecution has been initiated by respondent No. 1 as a defence for his liability of paying the amount to the petitioners. He prayed that the said proceedings be quashed.4. Shri Mulchandani submitte...
Euro-asia Chartering Corporation (Pte) Ltd. Vs. Fortune International ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR459(Bom); 2003(3)BomCR255
D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Arbitration Petition No. 162 of 2002 was filed before this Court by the petitioner, Euro-Asia Chartering Corporation (P.T.F.) Ltd., for a decree in terms of a foreign Award dated 16th December, 2001 as amended on 7th February, 2002 and for a declaration that the petitioner was entitled to enforce the Award as a decree of this Court against the respondent. The arbitration petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court (S.A. Bobde, J.) on 19th June, 2002. The respondent was not present before the Court and on behalf of the petitioner, an affidavit of service dated 19th June, 2002 was placed on record. The learned single Judge took due note of the fact that by the arbitration petition, enforcement was sought of an Arbitral Award governed by the New York Convention, passed by a sole Arbitrator in Singapore and that the enforcement of the Award was covered by the provisions of Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learne...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagvati Mohandas Somayya and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ921
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None present for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, though served. Perused the records.2. The appellants are challenging the award dated 10.12.1987, passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Greater Bombay in Application No. 1153 of 1984. By the impugned award, respondent No. 4 and the appellant are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 53,000 to the respondent No. 1 in addition to the amount of Rs. 15,000 already awarded under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the said Act') with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application, i.e., 21.6.1984 till the date of the payment, and the costs of the application. The award is sought to be challenged on the ground that there was no transfer of insurance policy, as contemplated under Section 103-A of the said Act on the date of the accident in favour of the transferee of...
Maharashtra Food Industries and ors. Vs. Kamalabai Manikrao Wath and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR103; 2003(4)BomCR704; 2003(1)MhLj876
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Gordey, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Bhangde, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 -landlord. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. Mr. Gordey, learned counsel for the applicants, contended that the applicants are the tenants of respondents 1 to 3. The applicant No. 1 is a Partnership Firm running a manufacturing unit, and manufactures bakery items in the tenanted premises. The respondents 1 to 3 filed an application for termination of tenancy of the applicant No. 1 before the Rent Controller, Amravati, seekingpermission under Clause 13(3) (iii) and 13(3) (vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Rent Controller and permission was granted to the respondents 1 to 3 to terminate the tenancy of applicant No. 1 vide order, dated 8-10-1987. 3. Mr. Gordey, learned counsel, further contended that the applicant No. 1 preferred an appeal against t...
Mahadeo S/O Pandurang Tambare and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR728; 2003(2)MhLj641
B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the agricultural lands in Gut Nos. 192 and 202 of village Andoora in Taluka Kallam of District Osmanabad. They are challenging the land acquisition proceedings which have culminated into an Award passed on 10-12-1990. The petitioners more particularly pray that the declaration dated 25-12-1987 made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) and the Award dated 10-12-1990 be declared as inoperative. 2. Admittedly on 19-8-1986 the respondent No. 2 published Section 4 notification in a local newspaper and the petitioners were served with the notice on 4-9-1986. After receiving the notice they filed their objections and Section 5A inquiry was conducted. The petitioners claim that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the local newspaper of 25-12-1987 and thus, it being beyond the period of one year from the date of Section 4 notification it was inoperative in view of provision...
State of Goa, Rep. by the Executive Engineer, Works Division Vii (Nh), ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR422
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By both these Appeals the State of Goa has challenged the Orders passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, and the IInd Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, whereby both the learned Judges have construed the objections filed by the Appellant with regard to the Arbitral Award to be time-barred and, accordingly, the Applications filed by the Appellant herein were rejected.2. As far as Appeal From Order No. 23 of 2002 is concerned, the Arbitral Award was passed on 8th August, 1997. Across the Bar, the learned Counsel for the Respondent states that the Appellant-State of Goa had received the aforesaid Arbitral Award on 4th September, 1997. Thereafter, on 7th of February, 1998, the Civil Judge, Senior Division by a notice informed the Appellant regarding filing of objections and the date was fixed as 17th March, 1998. In pursuance thereof, the Appellant State of Goa had filed the objections before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, under...
K. Chavda Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT47Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeals arise out of the order dated 8-5-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, by which he has inter alia cancelled the private bonded warehouse licence of M/s. Parson Brothers in terms of Section 58(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, confirmed duty demand of Rs. 2,01,712/- together with interest on M/s. Parson Brothers on goods covered by Shipping Bill No. F/730, dated 1-4-99 under Section 28 read with Section 72 of the Customs Act, imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on M/s. Parson Brothers for contravention of the provisions of Sections lll(d), lll(j) and lll(o) of the Customs Act and penalty of amount equal to duty under Section 114A of the Act, imposed penalties of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 55,000/- respectively on Shri Rajendra Bansal and Shri K. Chavda and ordered confiscation of White Maruti Van owned by Shri Rajendra Bansal under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. one lakh.2. The brief facts of the case are...
American Express International Banking Corporation Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR193; [2002]258ITR601(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The above three references are made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'the Act'). Since they raise common questions of law and facts, they are disposed of by this common judgment2. For the sake of convenience, we are relying upon the facts in Income-tax Reference No. 346 of 1987.3. The basic question referred to us by the Tribunal reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to deduct net interest paid by the assessee for the broken period to persons from whom the assessee bought Dated Government Securities while computing the assessee's business income ?'4. This question is quoted from Income-tax Reference No. 173 of 1983 as it involves the principal controversy in this case. This judgment deals with the scope of Section 18 and Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Preface : Meaning of broken period ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »