Mumbai Court March 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.
A.M.A. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT797Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants took credit on the basis of a dealer's invoice. The credit was denied on the ground that the dealer was not registered. In addition, a penalty was also imposed upon the assessee. The appellants do not challenge the denial of Modvat credit but question the imposition of penalty on the ground that the dealer's mistake cannot become a ground for imposition of penalty upon them.2. I find the stand of the assessee to be correct. The denial of credit, which was not an account of any mistake of theirs, has to be borne by them. There being no culpability on the part of the assessee in the proceeding, the orders of penalty do not sustain....
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT385Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides, it appears that the matter was capable of being decided at this stage. Both sides agreeing, this was done, after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 78,184/- 2. The appellants have a gas turbine installed in their factory.Insulation needs to be periodically changed. The insulating material was received in a roll. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of Modvat credit on the observations that a big roll could not be called as spares. Hence the appeal.3. It is correct that for placing around a pipe the material would have to be cut. It is also correct that it would be a spare only when so cut. But as the appellants had a pleaded before the Commissioner, they could not go to the market and seek part cuts from a roll. It is normal practice to secure the material in roll form for the sake of convenience. It was therefore, wrong on the part of both authorities to deny credit on the material in roll....
Smt. Akhtaribegum Abdul Gani Shaikh, Mother of Firoz Abdul Gani Shaikh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1443
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Tripathi counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.R. Patil, Acting P.P. for the state.2. The Petition is filed by the mother of the detenue. Detenue was detained under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlord, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act (MPDA Act) by the detention order dated 31.7.2000. Number of grounds have been raised by the petitioner challenging the detention. However, Mr. Tripathi restricted himself of the amended ground No. 6 (xxi) which is about incorrect and improper translation of the grounds of detention and the detention order from English to Hindi which was supplied to the detenue. According to Mr. Tripathi the mistake in translation are gross and there are vital omissions in the translation which affected the right of the detenue to make effective representation.3. In all seven instances have been quoted in this ground (xxi). However, Mr. Tripathi was permitted to raise other grounds ...
Gram Panchayat and Sarpanch, Grampanchayat Vs. Krishna Charitable Trus ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR789; 2003(5)BomCR122
1. Shri Morey learned Advocate for the appellantseeks permission to delete respondents Nos. 14 & 15.Permission granted, Shri C.J. Sawant alongwith ShriGovilkar for Respondents Nos. 1 to 13. Rule, returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing with consent of theparties. 2. Special Civil Suit No. 30/2001 was initiatedby the present respondent No. 1 before the CivilJudge, Senior Division, Karad, praying fordeclaration that the bill dated 10.10.2001 issuedby the appellant to the respondent was void ab-initio.The contention of the respondent in theSuit was it being a charitable trust was not liableto pay the Gram Panchayat taxes which were tried tobe recovered through the bill issued to therespondent. 3. On having been noticed the present appellantdefendant in the suit through its defence raisedthe preliminary objection as regards the verymaintainability of the suit itself. Reasons beingthe learned Judge had no jurisdiction and preciselyin pursuance of the prayer Clause-(b) made in theplaint w...
Kaveri Entertainment Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)BomCR576; [2003]117CompCas245(Bom); (2004)3CompLJ365(Bom); [2003]45SCL294(Bom)
D.G. Karnik, J.Heard.1. This petition is filed by Kaveri Entertainment Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') for approval of the Scheme of Arrangement (for short 'the scheme') by which the company proposes to amalgamate and merge itself wit Zee Telefilms Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company).2. Initially, the Company Application No. 430 of 2002 was filed by the company for directions under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') regarding the meetings of the share holders and creditors. By an order dated 13th September 2002, the court dispensed with the holding of the meeting of the share holders of the company on the ground that 100% of the equity share holders of the company had accorded their consent to the scheme. The court also dispensed with the holding of the meeting of the creditors of the company in view of the averments made in paragraph No. 19 of the petition and the undertaking given by the company to issue individu...
Gujarat Plastic Industries, a Partnership Firm Duly Registered Under t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)BomCR804; 2003(160)ELT125(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The issue raised in these two petitions are common and hence both the petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.2. The short question that arise for consideration in these petitioners are that, whether the additional duty of customs is leviable on acrylic sheets imported by the Petitioners. According to the Petitioners, in view of Notification No. 53/88 CE dated 1st March, 1988, there being total exemption on payment of central excise duty on manufacture of acrylic sheets falling under the Chapter heading 39.20 subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out therein, no additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act is leviable on the goods imported by the Petitioners. On the other hand, the contention of the revenue is that the Notification No. 53/88 CE dated 1.3.1988 being a conditional notification and since the conditions attached to the said Notification are not satisfied, the Petitioners are not entitled to seek exemption from payment o...
Om Prakash Navani and anr. Vs. Juno Changas Pereira and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom381; 2003(5)BomCR565; 2003(3)MhLj772
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. The main question that would put at rest the entire controversy before this Court in the present proceedings is : whether the execution of the consent decree passed on August 20, 1983 in Suit No. 1530 of 1983 has become barred by limitation? Briefly stated, the plaintiffs instituted suit for specific performance against the defendants in which, Consent Terms were filed and the suit was decreed in terms of the said Consent Terms. It will be apposite to advert to the said Consent Decree as passed by this Court on 20th August, 1983. The same reads thus :--'1. AGREED AND DECLARED that the agreement for sale dated 23rd October, 1981, Exhibit 'B' to the plaint is valid, subsisting and binding on the parties.2. ORDERED AND DECREED that defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as the executors and executrix of the Last Will and Testament of Mary Antoninette Pereira (hereinafter referred to as 'the said deceased') do sell, transfer and assign to and defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 do confirm...
Mr. Anil Thakeraney Vs. M. Darius Kapadia and the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj705
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. Both these applications have been mentioned in the Board as fixed for final hearing. Shri Saste is appearing for the State of Maharashtra and has been saddled with the burden of protecting the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, this Court does not wait for Shri Kapadia, the original complainant and hears these applications which are pretty old and which have obstructed the hearing of the criminal prosecutions in the trial Court.2. Shri H.N. Vakil appearing for Shri Anil Thakeraney (Original accused No. 6 mentioned in the complaint in context with Case No. 1817/S/1998) submitted that the petitioner published the true account of a criminal proceeding in his magazine 'THE BRIEF' and, therefore, keeping in view the exception provided to Section 499 of IPC, he has not committed the offence of defamation. He submitted that the trial Court should not have taken the cognizance of the complaint filed by respondent Kapadia and should not have issued the process against hi...
G.B. Nayyar Vs. Ashok Satyadev Mishra and State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj832
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri Anil Singh submitted that the petitioner company filed a complaint in D.N. Nagar Police Station against Respondent No. 1 alleging that he committed the theft of articles belonging to and in possession of the said company after investigation, the Investigating officer formed the opinion that it was a mischievous, vexatious and a false complaint and, therefore, he prayed for issuing 'B Summary' against the present petitioner. The said prayer and the report was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition in the High Court. It was heard and finally decided. The High Court held that the said complaint was not false, mischievous and vexatious and, therefore, 'B Summary' report prepared by the Investigating Officer was not proper. The stamp of false, mischievous and vexatious complaint was expunged. It was directed that it be not treated as 'B Summary'.2. After this, the present respondent filed complaint in the concerned Court alleging that by such publicati...
Abdul Sajid Abdul Sadiq Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj306
R.K. Batta, J.1. The applicant was tried for attempt to commit murder under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with two others. The co-accused were acquitted of the charge, but the applicant was held guilty under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to R.I. for two years as also fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for one month. The appellant filed an appeal before the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim dismissed the appeal. The appellant challenges the concurrent findings of two Courts below by filing this revision. 2. Learned Advocate for the applicant urged before me that even on admitted facts the offence as against the applicant would not fall under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code but that it would fall under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of this submission, it is urged by him that PW-3 admits that there was scuffle between the applicant and victim Mushtaq and the inju...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »