Mumbai Court February 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.
Shri V.U. Warrier Vs. Secretary, Oil and Natural Gas Commission and th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR94; 2003(4)BomCR555; 2003(3)MhLj168
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The Petitioner was holding the post of AdditionalDirector (F&A;) in Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC)prior to his retirement. He retired from service onsuperannuation with effect from 28th February 1990. Whiledealing with the aspect of payment of gratuity which wasfound payable to the Petitioner under 1969 Regulations,the amount of Rs. 53,632/- was deducted towardsunauthorised occupancy of official accommodation from 1stJuly 1990 to 16th May 1991 at the rate of Rs. 5100/- being75% of basic pay of Rs. 8800/- per month. This action isimpugned in the present Writ Petition.2. Few facts are not in dispute. The Petitionerretired in service of ONGC as Additional Director (F&A;).He retired on 28th February 1990. Under the then existingRules. Petitioner was entitled to retain the officialaccommodation upto the period of four months from the dateof retirement and accordingly he was in authorisedoccupation of the official accommodation upto 30th June1990. The Petitioner vaca...
Dr. Dheeraj Padalalu and Dr. Ashwini Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR162; 2003(4)BomCR560; 2003(2)MhLj524
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The first Petitioner as well as the secondPetitioner are qualified Ayurved medical practitioners.They have B.A.M.S. degree which enable them to practicein Ayurved. Both the Petitioners belong to non-teachingin service candidates. For the purposes of admission tothe course of M.D./M.S. (Ayurved) for the year 2001-2002,the advertisement was issued on 18th February 2002. ThePetitioners herein applied for admission to M.D./M.S.(Ayurved) course as in service candidates. The last datefor submission of forms was 7th March 2002. As per theadmission rules, 5% seats were reserved for non-teachingin service candidates. The qualification/eligibility foradmission to M.D./M.S. (Ayurved) in respect of in servicenon-teaching candidates was also provided. The merit listfor non-teaching staff for admission to post-graduateAyurved course for the year 2001-2002 was publishedwherein first Petitioner was at Sr. No. 8, second Petitionerwas at Sr. No. 18, the Respondent No. 3 was at Sr. No. 1...
Kum. Jyoti Pralhad Sangle Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its Sec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR62; 2003(4)BomCR558; 2003(3)MhLj754
R.M. Lodha, J.1. At the outset, Mr. R.K. Mendadkar, learned Counselfor Petitioner, handed over affidavit of the Petitionerwhich we mark 'X' for identification purposes. In thesaid affidavit, it is stated that pursuant to the interimorder passed by this Court in the year 1994, thePetitioner's application was considered by Respondent No. 7as designated authority and he allotted Seth G.S. MedicalCollege to the Petitioner where she took admission infirst year M.B.B.S. course in December 1994. She hasfurther stated that she has passed three subjects of thirdand final year of M.B.B.S. examination and has to cleartwo subjects yet. She has given an undertaking in theaffidavit that she would not claim any benefits belongingto Scheduled Tribe 'Mahadeo Koli' and she accept thefinding recorded by Respondent No. 4 Committee without anyreservation.2. Based on this affidavit, we have no hesitation inaffirming the order of Caste Scrutiny Committee rejectingPetitioner's caste claim and we hold that Pet...
Union of India (Uoi), Through Chief Engineer Vs. Anupam Builder and Sh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR215; 2003(6)BomCR381; 2003(4)MhLj509
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Heard forthwith. The Petitioner Union of India have impugned various claims awarded by the arbitral tribunal by its award dated 10.8.2002. For the purpose of deciding the controversies, it may be pointed out that the main challenge advanced at the bar though other challenges have been raised in the petition, but not argued may be summarized under the following heads: (a) Claim No. 2 which forms ground (e) in respect of Award for sand from other than at Mumbra. (b) Claim No. 8 which is ground (h) in the petition. (c) Claim No. 10 which is the subject matter of grounds (a) and (b). It is contended that this was an excepted matter and consequently could not have been the subject matter of reference before the arbitrator. (d) Claim 13 which is again raised and forms ground raised in grounds (a), (b) and (c). In addition it is pointed out that after rejecting the Claim 6 and 13, claim 13 could not have been awarded. (e) Claim No. 16 is in respect of interest. It is conten...
Tukaram Vaijnath Bahirwal and anr. Vs. Smt. Nasib Kaur W/O Late Babusi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR1090; (2003)105BOMLR122
D.S. Zoting, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original petitioners against the judgment and award dated 31st October, 1983, passed by the District and Sessions Judge and Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, in Motor Accident Claim No. 4 of 1980, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum.2. Facts relevant for decision of this appeal may be briefly stated as under.Accident took place on 15th March, 1980. On account of the vehicular accident the father of the appellants received injuries and he succumbed to the said injuries on the very day. The appellants are the son and the daughter of deceased Vaijnath. They filed the petition for grant of compensation to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. The truck owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2 was involved in the accident. The said truck was insured with respondent No. 3. The age of deceased Vaijnath at the time of accident was a...
Morarjee Brembana Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT500Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants were an EOU manufacturing cotton fabrics. They were permitted to clear certain quantities of fabrics into domestic tariff area on payment of applicable duties of excise. Such clearance was made at the concessional rate of duty specified in Notification No. 8/97.This notification limits the benefit to goods manufactured using raw material produced or manufactured in India. The as-sessees in the manufacture of such fabrics had used both indigenous and imported inputs. Show cause notices were therefore issued proposing computation of duty in terms of Notification No. 2/95 and seeking recovery of the duty short paid and also alleging liability to penalty.2. Before the Commissioner the assessee claimed that the imported materials were not raw material but were consumables and in an earlier case noticing the consumption facts benefits of Notification No. 8/97 had been granted. The CBEC had also permitted grant of benefit of this notification where imported consumables were...
B.V. Jewels Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT589Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. B.V. Star and M/s. B.V. Jewels are units situated inside the Santacruz Electronics Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ) and the remaining appellants are all partners (except one) of the two firms which are situated in the same building on different floors. Units located in SEEPZ engaged in exporting gems and jewellery are entitled to import capital goods, raw materials and consumables without payment of duty subject to certain conditions set out in relevant notification Nos.196/87-Cus., dated 5-5-1987 and 177/94-Cus., dated 21-10-1994. Value addition norms are prescribed in the Import (Control) Policy from time to time, the requirement of maintaining accounts of goods imported/ exported, etc. in certain formats are notified by the jurisdictional Customs authorities by Public Notices, all the raw materials imported are assessed by the customs authorities and export shipments are also so assessed. These two units were visited by the officers of Customs for stock taking on 31-1-2000. T...
Naran Lala Metal Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT281Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability for inclusion in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant of charges that it received towards engineering and technical know-how. We are concerned in this appeal with the goods manufactured by the appellant and supplied to Daulat S.S.K. Ltd., Halkamni in Maharashtra. The contract between the two parties provided for fabrication by the appellant in its factory of the goods and also for erection of the plant in the building of the purchaser. The price for the goods is specified itemwise in article D which included "Know-how and detail engg. fees Rs. 3,00,000/-." It is the includibility of this amount in the value of the goods that is in dispute.2. The contention of the representative of the appellant that the charges in question related to erection and commissioning of the equipment at site and being post manufacturing charges, are not includible in the assessable value of the goods that it manufact...
Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT382Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The notice issued to the appellant alleged that it did not declare the correct value of the compressors manufactured by it, since it did not include in the value of these compressors the value of the essential parts which were wrongly declared as accessories, and by showing the part of the true value of the compressors to be the value of these accessories. The notice consists mainly of this allegation with a statement showing the duty alleged to be short-levied. There is no material on the basis of which these allegations are sought to be established. The assessee did not reply to the notice, nor attend any hearing. The Deputy Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed in appeal, passed orders confirming the proposal in the notice. Hence this appeal.2. We have already noted that the show cause notice did not cite any evidence in support of the allegation contained in it. The Deputy Commissioner however relies upon a statement of the Senior Manager (Marketing) of the appellant in ...
Costa and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT514Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 12.62 lakhs approx and equal penalty.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed on the view that sausages, luncheon meat and other meat products manufactured by the applicant are classifiable in heading 1601.10 of the tariff, and not in subheading 0201.00 as claimed by it.3. On the face of it, we find that the applicant has a poor case on merits. The labels of the product indicate only that they are to be cooked heat at 71C before they are served. The counsel for the applicant is unable to explain what is stated in the affidavit of Dr.U.Y. Rege, stated to be an expert in food technology that while heating meat at 70C does not amount to cooking but 71C would amount to cooking. While the process undertaking by the applicant of subjecting the meat to 70C does not amount to cooking, the heating of meat at minimum 71C amounts to cooking. Although we can gather from this is that the first degree after 70C is crucial.4. It ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »