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.
Prakashchandra S/O Prithviraj Panpalia and anr. Vs. Village Panchayat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1061; 2003(3)BomCR314; 2003(1)MhLj572
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. The petitioners, in these petitions, have challenged the demand notices issued by the respondent Village Panchayat, Mandawa, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the challenge, in all these three petitions, is on identical grounds, we propose to decide and dispose of these three petitions by common Judgment.2. The petitioners, in Writ petition No. 547/88, are challenging demand notices dtd. 20-2-1988 annexed at Annexures 'H and I' to the petition. By the said two demand notices the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat, Mandwa had demanded an amount of Rs. 4544.00/- and Rs. 282.50/- respectively in respect of the property assessment tax for 30 years and 11 years respectively.3. The petitioner viz. Shri kishan Panpalia in Writ Petition No. 588/88 is challenging the demand notice dtd. 11-3-1988 which was a notice demanding an amount of Rs. 5436.25/- with respect to the house assessment and public health tax for the period up to 1987-88.4. The petitioner vi...
Atmaram Bapu Mane Deceased Through His Heirs Gokulabai Atmaram Mane an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR941; 2003(4)BomCR245; 2003(1)MhLj615
S.A. Bobde, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by which the said Tribunal reversed the finding of fact rendered by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer has held that the respondents predecessor-in-interest i.e. their father Sopan was not cultivating the agricultural land in question in his individual capacity but was doing so as manager of the joint family comprising of the petitioner and his brothers Atmaram, Maruti and Udhav. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has interfered with this finding of fact and come to the conclusion that from the evidence, Sopan alone was the tenant in possession and was in exclusive possession of the suit lands.2. The lands in question are survey No. 6/1, 6/4, 104/1, 105/1 and 34/2, situate at village Marapur taluka Mangalwedha. The said lands are hereinafter referred to as the 'lands in question'. The aforesaid lands were owned by Awadabai. She was the wife of one Genu Mane. Genu Mane had...
Saudi Arabian Air Lines Vs. Ashok Margovind Panchal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR357; [2003(96)FLR211]; 2002(1)MhLj745
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner employer is carrying on the business of international air transport. It is a foreign airlines company fully owned by the Royal family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21st October 1995 passed by the industrial court in complaint ULP No. 1296 of 1991 filed by the respondent who was employed as a security guard by the petitioner. The respondent employee complained of the unfair labour practice under items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and PULP Act, 1971 in his complaint under Section 28 read with Section 30 of the Act. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to make the respondent employee permanent from the date on which he completed 240 days of service and also to pay him all the consequential benefits of permanency. 2. According to the respondent, he was appointed vide appointment letter dated 1st October 1989 as a security guard o...
Balwant Gajanan SaThe Vs. Sub Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR965; 2003(2)BomCR372; 2003(3)MhLj165
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 17-8-1988 passed by the Collector, Raigad, Alibag, against the petitioner. By the impugned order, the Collector has modified the order of the S.D.O. and directed that the charcoal found in possession of the petitioner be forfeited in exercise of the powers under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', and further directed that non-agricultural assessment for unauthorised use also be recovered.2. It is difficult to see how that order is sustainable in view of the following facts :--The petitioner was found transporting certain bags of charcoal to his village Tala on 25-2-1988. According to the petitioner, he wanted to move the charcoal to a safer place since Holi was approaching. The Tahsildar, Mahad, stopped the petitioner and asked for necessary passes. According to the petitioner, he produced permission accorded to one Janu Dehu Manchekar for non-agri...
American Express International Banking Corporation Vs. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Bom)442
S.H. Kapadia, J.The above three references are made by 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 question of law and facts, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. 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?'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 interestAssesseeAmerican Express...
Stp Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT198Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III. The as-sessees are aggrieved by - (a) denial of benefit of Notification No. 126/78-C.E, dated 27-5-1978 to Tankmastic although the classification claimed under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 2715.90 as "cut back bitumen" has been accepted, (b) denial of benefit of Notification No. 35/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986, to the products CPRX compound and Shalikote T-10, T-12, T-14 & T-25, (a) extension of benefit of the above Notification to Tarfelt BH, BS, DC & Tarfelt Scrap, although the claim for classification of these products under CET sub-heading 5909.00 has not been accepted and the goods have been classified under CET sub-heading 5906.90, (b) extension of benefit of Notification No. 126/78-C.E. to Tankmastic and Shalitex Primer, (c) extension of benefit of Notification No. 126/78-C.E. to Shalibond BS and Shalibond CS, and (d) extension of benefit of Notification No. 35/86-C.E. to Shalik...
Cora Chem Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT718Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Cora Chem, the appellant in Appeal C/404, exported four consignments of toothpaste in 1994. The value declared of the goods was based on a unit price of Rs. 19/- per tube of toothpaste. The department ascertained that the appellant purchased the goods at a unit price of Rs. 10/- from Fresh Laboratories and Sonal Cosmetic (Export) Ltd., who manufactured it. Notice was issued to the exporter alleging that the value declared of the toothpaste was in excess of its real value, with an intent to derive advance import licence (entitling import of the goods without payment of duty) of a higher value than would otherwise have been possible. Penalties were also proposed on the firm and its partner, Pravinchandra D. Kabutarwala. The firm and its partner replied to the notice disputing the contentions therein. They said that difference in price was attributable to the fact that the exporter had established a good market in the Commonwealth of Independent States of Russia formerly USSR, and tha...
K. Thakore and Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT670Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue in this case relates to levy of service tax and penalty on the appellants herein. The Commissioner (Appeals), against whose order the above appeal and stay application have been preferred, has dismissed the appeal on the ground of time bar. It is brought to my notice that the relevant provision for appeals to Commissioner (Appeals) against the orders passed levying service tax and penalty, Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 where a period of 3 months has been prescribed as statutory period of limitation.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the present impugned order has wrongly applied the provision of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, wherein the limitation period of 60 days is reduced from 3 months period earlier given, and held the appeal as barred by limitation. The appeal has been filed by him within time. After admitting the appeal and granting stay, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall decide ...
Goa Environment Federation Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR762
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this petition, which is being treated as aPublic Interest Litigation, certain issues were raisedwherein all the citizens of the State of Goa areconcerned, in as much as they pertain to protecting,preserving and conserving certain vital species of fish,which provide a cheap source of proteins and also therights of traditional fishing communities, which aredependent upon fishing for their day-to-day livelihood,and to properly regulate fishing. The main grievance ofthe petitioner is that during the breeding season ofcertain varieties of fish between June and August, thefishing activity especially mechanized boats and trawlersought to be stopped, so as to enable the fish to breedduring the said breeding season, so as to conserve thesame on a sustainable basis.2. This Court had, by an Order dated 6th July,2000, directed the Director of National Institute ofOceanography, to file an affidavit with the materialavailable as to the breeding season of fish off Goa Coasta...
Vithal Malhar Kulkarni Vs. Tarabai Anna Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR36; 2003(2)BomCR282; 2003(1)MhLj342
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 8th June, 1988 dismissing the petitioner's revision and holding that the petitioner is not entitled to object to the permission sought by the respondent to sell the property in question.2. The dispute centers around the property admeasuring about 1.57 Hectare from Gat No. 534 at Village Chinchawad, Taluka Karvir. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner, Vithal Malhar Kulkarni is the successor in title of Yamunabai who was the original land owner. The land in question was transferred under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', in favour of the respondent Tarabai Anna Patil, who was the protected tenant. The certificate of purchase under the provisions of the Act was issued to the respondent and she became absolute owner of the lands in question.3. The respondent Tarabai entered into an Agreement to Sale ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »