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.
Mahindra and Mahindra Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR433; (2002)4BOMLR885; 2003(1)MhLj724
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the legality and validity of two Show Cause Notices (1) Notice dated 12th July 1985 along with its annexure dated 21st May 1986 and (2) Notice dated 4th February 1986, both issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise for short payment of excise duty under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short, 'the said Act').2. The petitioners herein are a Public Limited Company and they manufacture agricultural tractors (falling under Tariff Item No. 34-11) and required engines (Tariff Item No. 29) and certain components (Tariff Item No. 68) for the same at their factory situated at Kandivali, Mumbai. The petitioners have sales depots at Bombay and at Daman, Ludhiana and Lucknow etc. They have been filing classification list and price list periodically under the procedure of self removal of excisable goods which is under the control and supervision of Inspectors of E...
Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. S.L. Mehendale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR1064; 2003(3)BomCR218; [2003(97)FLR567]; 2003(1)MhLj759
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner, a Co-operative Bank, is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Orders dated 21-8-1993 and 17-11-1995 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No. 1158 of 1992 filed by the respondent No. 2 - employee under Section 28 read with Items 1(a)(b)(d)(f) and (g), 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 as he was aggrieved by the Order of termination dated 4-6-1992 passed by the petitioner Bank alleging several acts of misconducts committed by the respondent Employee.2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the respondent employee was served with charge sheet alleging against him certain acts of misconducts which can be termed as fraud committed by him while in employment. I need not set out the details and the charges as it is not necessary for the present purpose. It further appears that a domestic enquiry was held in the said charges and the concerned employee...
Rajaram Nivrutti Ghadge, Vs. Trimbai Shripad Dharurkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR967
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 21-1-1989 in Revision No. MRT-SH-I(SIC)-8/88 (TEN b 34/88). The petitioners are tenants in respect of land situated at village Sale, Taluka Pandharpur. District Solapur. The predecessors of Respondents was the owner of the suit land and being a widow was disabled landlady within the meaning of Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as the Tendency Act) Accordingly, the tiller's day was postponed. She dies on 12-12-1970. After the death of landlady, the Respondent inherited the property and has become the landlord. According to the Respondent, the tenants were persistent defaulters since attest 1970-71 onwards and intimations were given to the tenants by the landlord in that behalf, in spite of which the tenants did not pay the amount towards rent. In the circumstan...
Natwarlal Gokuldas Shah (Since Deceased by His Lrs Narenedra Natwarlal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: (2004)1BOMLR638
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Sangli dated 31st March 1987 in Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1982.2. The premises in question consists of room admeasuring 40 x 10 sq.ft. in CTS No. 305, Pet Bhag, Sangli. The original petitioner Natwarlal Gokuldas Shah was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises some time in the year 1852. The respondent is the landlord. The Respondent instituted a suit for possession against the tenant on the ground of default and bonafide requirement in the year 1970, being RCS No. 19 of 1970. However, we are concerned only with the ground of default. The tenant contested the said suit. It was his case that annual rent in respect of the suit premises was only Rs. 150/- per annum and not as demanded by the landlord. The trial Court accepted that claim of the tenant. The trial court, however, found that the Respondent landlord was entitled to r...
Smt. Anusayabai Ganpati Gaikwad (Deceased Through Her Heirs Shri Kirsh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR1000; 2003(4)MhLj956
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur dated 23rd July 1987 in Revision Application No. MRT SS/9/1982.2. The suit lands are situated at village Nagewadi, Taluka Khanapur, District Sangli. In all 4 lands are subject matter of the present Petition, viz. Survey Nos. 36/1C, 97/7, 291/6 and 257/4 respectively. These lands were owned by one Bhau Aba Nikam who died on 17th April 1953 leaving behind his wife Smt. Kasabai and daughter Anusayabai. It is common ground that the Respondent No. 1 (Baba Tatya Nikam) is the cousin brother of Anusayabai. It is also not in dispute that there is no written Kabulayat on rent receipt executed in favour of the said Baba Tatya Nikam in respect of the suit land. However, the said Baba Tatya Nikam, predecessor of the present Respondents claimed that he was tenant in respect of the suit land on the basis of certain en...
Cit Vs. Khimline Pumps Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN104(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal dated 25-7-2000 in IT Appeal No. 335 (Mum) of 1997 for the assessment year 1991-92, the department has filed this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee has preferred cross-objections under order 41 rule 22(1).2. The substantial question of law which arises for determination of this court is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that payment of Rs. 45 lakhs for purchase of the unit was a capital expenditure and if it was a capital expenditure as held by the Tribunal, then whether the Tribunal was justified in directing apportionment of the said amount as advance rent over a period of 71 years at the rate of Rs. 63,380 per annum as rent relatable to each year ?' 3. Since the above substantial question of law arises out of the appeal filed by the department and the cross-objections...
Jayshree Insulators Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: (2006)STR205
1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 7,50,000/- along with interest arises out of the Order in Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of Section 84 of the Finance Act.2. The brief facts are that the show cause notice was issued requiring the applicants to pay service tax for goods transport operators' service provided to them for the period 16-11-97 to 1-6-98 since they had neither applied for registration with Central Excise Authorities nor paid the service tax and hence there was a contravention of Sections 68 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. The notice directed them to furnish quarterly return in form ST-3 and proposed recovery of interest for the delayed payment and proposed penal action under Sections 76, 77 and 79 of the Finance Act, 1994. Prior to the issue of the notice, the validity of Rule 2(d)(xvii) of Service Tax Rules, 1944 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and prior to the adjudication of the notice, the Apex Court...
Shabnam Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT123Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The brief of the case are that the appellants, an 100% EOU, are engaged in the manufacture of crimped/texturised yarn, falling under Chapter Heading 5402.52 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, out of raw material obtained indigenously or imported free of duty under the obligation of export of the final product as well as clearance of final product in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) on payment of appropriate duty as applicable from time to time at the rate for the time being in force as per the norms of the Exim Policy prevalent at the material time and under the procedures laid down for 100% EOUs. The unit is registered as 100% EOU with the Development Commissioner, Kandla Free Trade Zone. According to the Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-95, 100% EOUs are liable to pay excise duty leviable under Sec. 3 of the Central Excise Act equal to 50% of each of the duties of Customs, leviable under the Customs Act or under any law for the time being in force, read with a...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Jupiter Exports
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT410Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Notice issued to Jupiter Exports and its partners alleged that the advance licences for import of goods (which would entail it, subject to the terms and conditions, that the exemption from duty contained in notification 203/92) had been obtained by manipulating records relating to export, showing export of goods of higher value than was actually made. The notice proposed recovery of customs duty from Jupiter Exports and its partners; confiscation under Clause (d) and (i) of Section 113 of the imported goods pending clearance; confiscation under Clause (d) and (o) of Section 111 of the Act of goods earlier imported and cleared; penalties under Section 112(a) and Section 114(i).Adjudicating on this notice, the Commissioner passed orders confirming the demand for duty and imposing penalties on each of the partners. He did not order confiscation of goods under any of the provisions of law.2. On appeal from this order disposing of this appeal against this order, the Tribunal held that c...
Arjundev Khemchand Dureja an Indian Inhabitant Vs. the State of Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)534
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Petitioner is the father of the detenu. Detenuis detained under COFEPOSA. Order of detention is dated23.01.2002. It was served on the detenu on 22.02.2002. Inthe petition number of grounds have been taken forchallenging the detention. However, we are consideringonly one submission of Mr. Maqsood Khan appearing for thedetenu to allow this petition and hence we are notconsidering the other submissions made by him.2. First contention that was raised by Mr. MaqsoodKhan is as per amended ground (XIII) i.e. the representationof the detenu dated 6.4.2002 was not forwarded by the StateGovernment to the Central Government and this has resulted indenying the detenu his rights under Article 22(5) ofConstitution of India. Mr. Maqsood Khan relied upon followingjudgments of the Supreme Court :-(1) : 1991CriLJ2713 [Amir Shad Khan v.L. Hmingliana and others]; (2) 1993 Sup (2) SCC 341 [Rumana Begum v.State of Andra Pradesh and another]; (3)2001 SCC (Cri) 289 [R. Keshava v.M.B. Prak...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »