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.
Eid Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT947Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant before us imported a consignment of butene diol and by filing appropriate bill of entry it had deposited the goods in the bonded warehouse without payment of duty in January 2002. In March, of that year, it filed a bill of entry to clear the goods from the bonded warehouse for home consumption, and claimed in that bill of entry the exemption from duty contained in notification 31/97. The exemption is only applicable if the goods are imported against an advance licence.The appellant therefore attached to the bill of entry a copy of the advance licence, which had been obtained by transfer, issued for butene diol and was though initially valid up to 18.8.2001, had been renewed and was valid till 28.2.2002.2. The department refused to accept the licence on the ground that when it was presented for clearance of the goods from the bonded warehouse it was ceased to be valid. Notice was issued proposing disallowance of the exemption and the Commissioner passed orders denying ...
Shriram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., a Co-operative Sugar Factory Be ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR525
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. R.D. Rane, Additional Government Pleader, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 2A. In the facts and circumstances, the matters have been taken up for final hearing.2. Writ Petition No. 7391 of 2002 is instituted by the petitioner against the respondents for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the State of Maharashtra and Commissioner of Sugar, Pune, respondent No.1, to implement Zonal Order, 1984 issued under the provisions of Mahrashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas and Regulation of Crushing and Sugar-cane supply) Order hereinafter referred to as 'the Order'), as amended from time to time and to ensure that petitioner-karkhana gets sugar-cane necessary for its existence as per crushing licence issued by the Joint Director of Sugar (Development) and Licensing Authority, Pune, respondent No. 2A. A prayer is also made directing the State Government to revise Zonal Order 1984 as per the decision of t...
Anandkumar N. Patil, Vs. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR496; 2003(3)MhLj627
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. With the consent of Counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal.The Petitions before the Court2. In this batch of matters under Article 226 of the Constitution, students from diverse disciplines drawn inter alia, from the medical and allied sciences question the validity of the policy being followed by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences in regard to the award of grace marks at examinations. Among the students who are before the Court in these proceedings are those pursuing the M.B.B.S. Degree Courts in colleges affiliated to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences ('MUHS'). Apart from these students, there are students who are pursuing the degree courses of the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (B.D.S.), Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (B.H.M.S.), Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (B.A.M.S.), and Bachelor of Physiotherapy (B.P.Th.). All the Writ Pet...
Shri Janardan Subrao Pai Vs. Shri Chandra Kamalaksha Pai and the State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)80; 2003BomCR(Cri)1365; 2003CriLJ2909; 2003(4)MhLj342
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard both sides for final disposal, by consent.2. The short question that arises in the present cased is: whether the Petitioner, who is complainant in the criminal case filed against the Respondent No. 1 for offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, was entitled to read the certified copy of the deposition given by the Respondent No. 1 in another criminal case filed by the Petitioner against the co-owners of the subject land as witness in that case? The Trial Court by order dated 19th June, 2000, rejected that prayer by holding the production of that document would infringe the fundamental right guaranteed to the accused Respondent No. 1 herein under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The order reads thus :'Pursued heard advocate S.C. Shah for the complainant. Advocate Shri Ponda for the accused. Deposition of the accused as a witness in another case is sought to be produced and exhibited. So far production is concerned, it can be a...
Shri Sanjay Sakharam Dongare Vs. Sou. Jyoti Sanjay Dongare @ Jyoti Pra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)79; 2003BomCR(Cri)1342; 2003(4)MhLj319
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith byconsent. Heard both sides for final disposal, byconsent.2. By this Petition, under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India read with Section 482 ofthe Criminal Procedure Code, the Petitioneressentially seeks to challenge three sets oforders. The first set of order is determining themaintenance amount, to be paid by the Petitionerto the Respondent 1 to 3 dated 26th November,1997. That order has been confirmed by theRevisional Court on 21st November, 1998.Subsequently, Respondent 1 to 3 filed applicationfor enhancement in terms of the amended provisionsof the Code, as applicable to the State ofMaharashtra. The Trial Court has accepted thatrequest and enhanced the maintenance amount byorder dated 17th May, 2000. This is the secondset of order challenged in the present WritPetition. The third set of orders challenged inthis Petition are, orders passed in derivativeproceedings due to non-compliance of themaintenance orders passed by th...
Bhaskar Virappa Kanchan and NavIn Purushottam Shetty Vs. State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)112; 2003BomCR(Cri)1648
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The appellants are assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 539 of 1993 wherein appellant Navin Purshottam Shetty has been sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo 51 for 7 days for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 397 of IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default S.I. fr 3 days. Appellant Bhaskar Virappa Kanchan has been sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo SI for 7 days for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default S.I. for 3 days for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC.2. These two appe...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Attar Mohd. Dawood and Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Bom)301; [2004]267ITR436(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. Challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 8-12-2000. Revenue has filed the present Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the I. T. Act raising the following substantial question of law :-- 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT (Appeals) cancelling the penalty Rs. 17,22,818/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the assessing officer on account of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of its income by the assessee, which has come to the notice of the Revenue on account of a search under Section 132 and pursuant whereto the assessee had filed a revised return declaring total income of Rs. 15,52,660/- as against Rs. 6,17,370/- offered in the original return?' 2. The assessment year involved herein is A. Y. 1983-84. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of perfumery compounds, attar and a...
P.V. Ali Mubarak Vs. Bank of Tokyo-mitsubishi Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Bom51; 2003(2)ALLMR448; 2003(5)BomCR355; [2003]47SCL566(Bom)
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The Original Plaintiff, the Bank of Tokyo -Mitsubishi Limited, instituted a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,10,28,663.56 together with interest at the rate of 16.5% per annum against the Original defendants. On 3rd April, 1987, this Court appointed the Court Receiver as Receiver of a tea estate situated at Kottapadi, District Wynad in the State of Kerala. The Receiver was permitted to appoint any third party as his agent in respect of the estate in question. The Receiver is stated to have taken possession of the properties which form the subject matter of the suit on 2nd May, 1987 and, from time to time appointed third parties as his agents in respect of the tea estate referred to above. In pursuance of an order dated 30th April, 1993 the Receiver had appointed M/s. Travancore Malabar Estates as her agent in respect of the tea estate in question since 23rd June, 1993.2. Pursuant to the enactment by Parliament of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks...
Satinderpalsingh Anand Vs. Sharnpal Balmukund Chopra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR830
Rebello F.I., J.1. Parties will be described by their names as the matter involves two suits which were referred to arbitration by the order of this Court dated 13-8-1999 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 34 of 1999 in Appeal No. 173 of 1992 in Suit No. 363 of 1988 and in Appeal No. 172 of 1992 in Suit No. 721/88. By the said order passed in proceedings in Suit No. 363/88 at the instance of the respondent Chopra who is plaintiff in Suit No. 363/88 filed against Sunder Singh Anand, since deceased, who was defendant No. 1 and the petitioner herein, who was defendant No. 2 and in proceedings arising from Suit No. 721/1988 filed by Sardar Singh Anand, original plaintiff against the respondent Chopra, the Court ordered that the parties without prejudice to their rights and contentions had agreed to refer all the disputes arising between the parties in relation to Suits No. 363/1988 and 721/1988 to the sole arbitration of Mr. S.R. Shah, Senior Advocate as provided in the earlier consent ter...
Pravinchandra C. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT150Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In its order, which is the subject matter of this application, the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the advocate for the appellant that since H.U. Shah, the noticee along with the appellant in the matter, settled the matter under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, the proceedings against the appellant had abated. The application filed by the appellant prays for modification of the Tribunal's order to say that the appeal is allowed in place of the expression that the appeal has abated. Counsel for the applicant relies upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court and the decision of the Tribunal relating to Gaurang Mehta v. CC [Tribunal's decision reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 853 (Tribunal)]. He also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI v. Onkar S. Kanwar [2002 (145) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.) = 2002 (52) RLT 871]. The question before the Bombay High Court in Gaurang Mehta was whether in view of the KVSS (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1998, proceedings against Gauran...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »