Mumbai Court January 2003 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.
D. Prithviraj and Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT361Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These 18 Applications relate to 18 Appeals filed against 9 adjudication Orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai. Since the facts are the same and some of the Appellants are common, these are being disposed of by this common order.2. M/s. Overseas Development Corporation (hereinafter ODC) based in USA are suppliers of Steel Materials. Shri Anil Mody is their indenting agent in India. Shri Dungarmal Doshi, Proprietor of M/s. Dungarmal Prithviraj & Co. (hereinafter DPC) had imported several consignments from ODC. Some of the consignments were cleared by them in their own name. Some of the consignments were sold by them to M/s. Alfa Transcore Industries, M/s. Transtamp Laminators (I) Pvt Ltd. and M/s. Suparshva Industries. Shri A.G. Deshmukh is the Director of Transtamp Laminators (I) Pvt. Ltd. 3. A number of consignments had been imported and cleared by DPC and/or the 3 corporations named above who had bought the material on High Seas Sale basis. The go...
Leo Suzind Fisheries Ltd. and ors. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC251
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 3.5.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai on Exh. No. 42 in Original Application No. 629/2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding officer only partly allowed the application made by the appellants for adding certain paras in original written, statement and observed that since the other paras made out a case for counter-claim, those paras could not be allowed unless requisite Court fee was paid. The appellants are aggrieved by this order, because according to them, there was nothing like counter claim in the paragraphs, which were proposed to be incorporated by way of amendment, and hence they ought to have been allowed by the learned Presiding Officer, without insisting for payment of Court fees. Since, that prayer was not allowed, the present appeal is filed.2. I have heard Mr. Bhagwat for the appellants and Mr. Kaushik for the...
Jagu Tukaram Waghamale Vs. Dnyandeo Bala Waghmale, Since Deceased by H ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR27; 2003(2)BomCR465; 2003(2)MhLj475
S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petition is filed by Jagu Tukaram Waghamaleagainst the orders of the tenancy Courts, confirmed bythe Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that he is not atenant in spite of the fact that 32G proceedingsconcluded much earlier, he has been declared to be atenant and he has paid the purchase price and acertificate under Section 32M has been issued to him.2. The petitioner Jagu Tukaram,Waghamale claims to bea tenant of the land in question i.e. survey No. 414,now gat No. 1004, admeasuring 5 acres and 5 gunthas,situate at village Arale, taluka Satara, districtSatara. He has been found to be a tenant in possessionof the land on 1.4.1957. Proceedings for purchase ofthe land under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy andAgricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred toas the 'Act') were concluded in his favour in the year1965 and a certificate under Section 32M has also beenissued to him. These proceedings were concludedbetween the petitioner Jagu and the earlier owner ofthe land...
Shakuntala Arjun Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1152; 2003(3)BomCR56; 2003(2)MhLj413
S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order dated5.10.186/11.2.1987 passed by the Collector, Nasik,cancelling the allotment of agricultural lands to thepetition under the provisions of the MaharashtraAgricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961,hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The Tahsildar,Nasik, as Chairman of the Surplus Lands DeterminationTribunal allotted four hectares 35 areas of land to thepetitioner. The allotment was made after advertisementwas published and no application was received inpursuance thereof. The lands were allotted to thepetitioner for horticultural i.e. for growing certainfruit bearing trees. Thereafter, on 24.10.1985 theGovernment made a reference to the Commissioner, NasikDivision. In the reference, the Government seems tohave assumed that the land is not cultivable and,therefore, the allotment ought to have been done underSection 27(9) of the Act. In the reference, theGovernment observed that the land has been improperlyallotted to the pe...
Datta Manika Dhobi, Since Deceased Through His Lrs.: Vs. Dattatraya @ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MhLj393
A.B. Naik, J.1. A short question arises in this WritPetition, as to whether the landlord who hasobtained possession of the land by dispossessing theprotected tenant, can be evicted by the Collector orthat purpose the Deputy Collector, on an applicationfiled by dispossessed- tenant under section 98 ofthe Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act,1950; ( hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'). Thepetitioners are the heirs of original tenant, whodied during pendency of this proceeding, will bereferred to as ' the tenant' hereinafter.2. It is not disputed that Land Survey No:262/A to the extent of 8A 3 G situated at villageKuntur (hereinafter referred to as ' the land') wasof the ownership of the respondent Dattatraya @Dattopant Ganpatrao { who hereinafter will bereferred to as ' the landholder'}. The tenant(i.e.Datta Manika) undisputedly was a protected tenant ofthe land and declared owner of the land under theprovisions of the Act. It is also not disputed thaton 26th November, 1980 in...
Vijay Uttamlal Chaudhary Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)109; 2004(1)BomCR154; 2004CriLJ1846
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The appellant is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case NO. 1125 of 1995 wherein the applicant has been convicted for an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 452 read with 34 of IPC, 392 read with 34 of IPC, 394 read with 34 of IPC and Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 5.6.1995 at about 3.10 p.m. complainant Satyabhama Bansal was alone in her house as her husband and son left for business purpose and domestic servant Sitaram had left at 3.00 p.m. after finishing his job. At 3.10 p.m. somebody rang the bell and on account of that the complainant Satyabhama saw as to who he was by opening the chain and bit of door. The appellant Vijay was accompanied by three persons. Appellant Vijay was working as a domestic servant with Satyabhama prior to said day. Satyabhama did...
Rajendra S/O Ramkrishna Naraje and ors. Vs. Vinodkumar S/O Chhaganlal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC631; 2004ACJ1711; 2003(2)ALLMR654; 2003(5)BomCR347; 2003(3)MhLj289
S.G. Mahajan, J. 1. This revision is directed against the refusal of registration of Motor Accident Claim Petition. 2. Notices were issued to the respondents indicating that the revision shall be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. Though the respondents were served, none appeared for them. The matter is, therefore, heard and being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.3. The revision-petitioners are the claimants. It is their contention that on 30-7-1998, deceased Ramkrishna Naraje was travelling in a Tempo Trax Vehicle No. MH-30/B-1149 along with five others. When the vehicle reached the bridge of river 'Man' near Village Lohara, it met with an accident and fell in the river. All the six inmates travelling by the Tempo Trax died in the said accident. The dead body of Ramkrishna had flown away in the flood of the river and could not be traced out in spite of extensive search. So, the death certificate/post-mortem report of deceased Ramkrishna could not be obt...
Shri C.P. Kotwal Vs. Shri Ali Ashad, Instrument Officer, Gulf Pharmace ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1480; 2003CriLJ2885; 2003(3)MhLj810
J.G. Chitre, J.The petitioner is hereby praying for quashingthe Criminal Complaint bring No. 131/Misc./97pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 22ndCourt, Andheri, Bombay as well as the order of thesaid Court directing investigation to be made bySakinaka Police Station officer in view of provisionsof Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter referred to as Code for convenience).2. Few facts need to be stated for unfolding thecontroversy in question. Respondent No. 1 Ali Ashadhad purchased a flat bearing No. D/702 in LakeCastle, Hiranandani Garden, Pawai, Mumbai constructedby Apex Construction in Hirandani Complex which wasallotted to respondent No.1 on 14/4/1990 for sum ofRs. 6,32,500/- to be paid in instalments. The saidpurchase price has been paid by respondent No.1.Respondent No.1, according to the contention of thepetitioner, had purchased a flat from C.I.D.C.O. atC.B.D. in the year 1983 but was unable to pay theloan which was to be repaid in that cont...
Commr. of Cus. (Appeals) Vs. Cosper Impex Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT712Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Ishwar Singh, learned J.D.R. appearing for Revenue states that this is an appeal filed against the order-in-appeal, dated 4-7-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. He further states that the appeal has been filed on the following grounds : "Under para 47 of the Exim Policy, inputs required for manufacture of export product may be allowed to be imported duty free against an advance licence under the Duty Exemption Scheme. Exempted materials allowed to be imported duty free under Notification No. 80/95-Cus., dated 31-3-1995 as amended from time to time are defined as "raw materials, component, intermediates, consumables, computer software and parts required for manufacture of export product. Therefore, the concept of nexus between inputs used in the export production and the imported items is inherent in the Notification and the Duty Exemption Scheme. Further to above, the licence in the present case was issued subject to the condition sheet attached to l...
Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT557Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Each of these appeals, except for Appeal E/2325 and 2326, is by manufacturers of goods. Appeals E/2325 and 2326 by Vipul Shah and Arnab Ranjan Dutta are against the penalty imposed on them under Rule 209A with regard to their acts in their capacity as manager and finance controller respectively of General Motors.2. The common question for consideration in these appeals is whether in determining the assessable value of the goods manufactured by each of the assessees, the insurance and freight incurred in relation to transport of the goods from the factory of the manufacturer to the premises of the consignee is to be included. In the orders impugned in the appeals, the Commissioner has, heavily relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE [2000 (118) E.L.T. 650 = 1999 (35) RLT 9], upheld that these charges are includible.3. The contention of the counsel for each of the appellants is that it has now been held in two judgments of the Supreme Court, that the fact...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »