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.
Philips India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT432Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent, after waiving deposit.2. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) impugned in this appeal confirms the demand for Rs. 10,82,004/- and equivalent amount of penalty imposed on the appellant by the order of the Additional Commissioner which was impugned before him.3. Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the validity of the demand, which represents the duty payable on capital goods that the appellant received in its factory and consequently sold to Punjab Anand Lamp Industries Ltd., Mohali. He does not dispute that the duty payable on the goods at the time of removal the duty ought to have been paid by the appellant on these goods, as if they were manufactured as provided in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57S. He attributes the failure to human failure. He further contends that penalty should not have been imposed under Section 11AC of the Act for the reason that it was not in force when the action in question was carried out. He next conten...
Skol Breweries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT727Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri T. Gunashekaran, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the issue is excisability of an intermediate product called WORT which comes into existence while manufacturing beer. He states that the department has claimed the same to be mart extract classifiable under sub-heading 1901.91. The impugned order confirms duty amount of Rs. 1,37,24,459/- and imposes a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. It is the contention of the learned advocate that the product is not stable and is not marketable. The department has not adduced any evidence regarding marketability of the product. He further shows that the explanatory note to the H.S.N. for Heading 19.01 clearly shows what malt extract are and the impugned product does not conform to the same.He also shows that WORT is defined separately in the Maharashtra Manufacture of Beer and Wine Rules, 1966. In support of his contention, the learned advocate relies on the following decisions :-Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 19...
Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT779Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants inter alia states as follows :- The appellants imported a consignment of Reverse Osmosis Elements and Membranes Housing Fibreglass Reverse Osmosis Pressure Vessels vide bill of entry dated 5-6-97. (2) The appellants claimed the benefit of Sl. No. 150 of Notification No. 11/97-Cus. Sl. No. 150 granted exemption to machinery or equipment specified in List 10 to Notification No. 11/97-Cus. required for textile industry. Sl. No. 30 of List 10 covered the following: "Effluent Treatment Unit with automatic sensing devices, automatic controller chemical dozing air flotation (DAF), reverse osmosis, sludge dewatering, decanters, ultra filters, vacuum filters to deliver water for reuse." (3) According to the appellants, the equipment imported by them is covered in Sl. No. 30 of List 10 of Notification No. 11/97-Cus., the benefit of exemption is available to them. (4) The lower authorities have held that the exemption is availab...
Mukesh K. Bajapa Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR22; 2003(2)BomCR473; 2003(2)MhLj256
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides.2. The respondent Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the appellant on 7th May 1987 under Section 347 and 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act 1888 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the removal of the unauthorized construction and structure. Earlier, by order dated 7th March 1990, the respondent Municipal Corporation had granted the request for regularization of the unauthorized construction subject to certain conditions including payment of security, deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 21,350/-.3. Being aggrieved by the impugned notice of 7th March, 1987 issued under Section 347 and 351 of the Act, the appellant filed a suit in the City Civil Court Bombay bearing suit No. 4212/90 interalia, for a declaration that the order of regularization directing payment of the security deposit and penalty was illegal and also for a declaration that the impugned notice of demolition under Section 346 rea...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Tanaji Shamrao Shalke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)66; 2003BomCR(Cri)1367
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This appeal takes exception to the judgmentand order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Sangli, dated January 21, 1987 in Sessions Case No. 26 of1986, whereby the Respondent-original accused wasacquitted of the charge of having committed offencepunishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IndianPenal Code.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution cases is thatthe Respondent treated his wife deceased-Kamal withcruelty, who committed suicide within 3 years from themarriage thereby induced, abetted and facilitated her tocommit suicide on 20th November 1985 at village TambhaveDhandbag, Taluka Islampur, Dist. Sangli. The accused isresident of village Tambhave Dhandbag in Taluka Islampurand is an agriculturist by occupation. The deceasedkamal hailed from Bombay and was the daughter of P.W.-2Shakuntla. The incident in question occurred on 20thNovember 1985 within around 2/3 years of the marriagebetween accused-Tanaji and deceased-Kamal. The chargeframed against the accuse...
Shirish Govind Gangakhedkar Vs. Maruit Narayan Gaiwad,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR77; 2003(4)BomCR829; 2003(3)MhLj587
1. This writ, petition takes exceptionto the judgment and order passed by theMaharashtraRevenue Tribunal, Pune, dated October 18, 1999, inRevision No. MTR-P-I-14/98 (B-20/94) Pune.2. Briefly stated, the Respondents 1 to3 were the original owners of two lands admeasuring3-H 59-R out of Survey No. 42 and 0-H 99-R out ofSurvey No. 40/2, situate at village Wadavali,Taluka: Mavalk, Dist: Pune. Respondents 1 to 3became owners of the said lands after havingpurchased the same under the provisions of Section32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural LandsAct, 1948 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity, inshort referred to as 'the Act',). In other words,the said Respondents 1 to 3 were tenants in thesaid lands and became deemed purchasers byoperation of law. Some time on 18th January 1992,the said Respondents 1 to 3 made application UnderSection 43 of the Act to permit them to transferthe said two lands to the Petitioner herein. Thatapplication was decided by the S.D.O. on January24, 1992, grant...
Mahadu Alias Mahadeo Baji Bhosale Vs. Appaji Gunbarao @ Ganpatrao Bhos ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom314; 2003(1)ALLMR1158; 2003(3)BomCR15; 2003(2)MhLj216
S.A. Bobde, J.1. By this petition the defendant/Judgment Debtor challenges the order of the District Court, Ratnagiri dismissing his appeal by which he had made a grievance about the manner in which the Collector had effected the partition after a decree had been passed by the Civil Court.2. The respondents here i.e. Appaji Gulabrao @ Ganpatrao Bhosale, since deceased, now represented by his legal representatives and others had instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 50 of 1971 against the petitioner and some others, who are defendants. The parties to the suit were related to each other. The suit resulted in decree to the effect that the suit land should be divided equally between the contesting parties i.e. the plaintiff would be entitled to a half share and the defendants should be entitled to another half.3. This decree was passed in accordance with the consent terms entered into by the parties. The consent terms referred to the properties in possession of the parties. Clause 5 of the c...
Amritlal Chemaux Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR221; 2003(4)BomCR108; [2003]114CompCas336(Bom); [2003]48SCL26(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar with Mr. Sakseria for the appellants. Mr. Chinai appears for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jain appears for the interveners and Mr. Rakesh Maradia and Mr. Rasiklal Maradia.2. This appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by a learned single judge (Karnik J.) on December 21, 2001 below the report of the official liquidator dated October 23, 2001, and further resubmitted report dated November 29, 2001 in Company Petition No. 895 of 1998.3. The facts leading to the impugned order and this controversy are as follows:The appellants are owners of property known as 'Rang Udyan', which is an industrial estate situated at Mahim, Mumbai. Premises on the second floor in Building No. 1 of this property were given to one Amar Dye-Chem Ltd. (presently in liquidation) on leave and licence basis beginning from September 1, 1960. These are office premises of the size of 4,850 sq. ft. The appellants have filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for ...
In Re: Shailesh Harinarayan Bajaj Vs. Creative Outerwear Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR758; 2004(1)CTLJ377(Bom); 2004(1)MhLj606
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The judgment creditors based on the judgment and decree passed in their favour in Summary Suit No. 5217 of 1999, consequent to an order rejecting the Summons for Judgment No. 26 of 2002 took out a Notice under Section 9 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. They would hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners, the judgment debtor hereinafter shall be referred to as the respondent. The judgment debtor/respondent by the present Motion have moved to set aside the Insolvency Notice.2. A few facts may be set out. The petitioners filed a Summary Suit before this Court being Summary Suit No. 5217 of 1999. On appearance being filed by the respondent Summons for Judgment came to be taken out. Respondents sought leave to defend. After examining the defences as raised a learned Judge of this Court held that defences as raised by the defendants are without any substance and dishonest. Consequently the Summons for Judgment deserved to be granted and accordingly allowed the ...
Raghunath Abajirao Shinde (Lt. Co.) and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR860; 2003(2)BomCR469
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioners, including the persons whom they have been representing as per list in Annexure A annexed to the writ petition, were owners of different pieces of agricultural lands situated in village Pedhambe, Taluka-Chiplun, District-Ratnagiri. By different notifications issued under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 between the years 1967 and 1970, the petitioners' lands admeasuring about 100 acres were sought to be acquired for the public purpose, namely, Koyna Hydro Electric Project, Stage III works. Thereafter, notifications were issued under section 6, compensation paid and possession taken between years 1968 and 1970. It is petitioners' case that the State of Maharashtra, that is respondent No. 1, declared about 65 to 67 acres of land out of village Pedhambe as surplus and not required for public purposes, namely Koyna Hydro Electric Project Stage III works. The petitioners came to know that the excess lands were allotted to Konkan Development Corporatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »