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.
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT543Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri J.C. Patel, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the appellants have provided fire fighting equipments in their factory and they have also trained their personnel for fire fighting to deal with fire accidents. However, on 11-3-1999 a fire broke out in the appellants' factory premises and despite the fire brigade arriving within a few minutes there was some loss of the finished goods in the fire. He states that the excise authorities and police were also intimated. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. have drawn a survey report and have settled the claims regarding the burnt/damaged goods which does not include duty. The appellants were issued a show cause notice demanding central excise duty of Rs. 44,33,998/- on the finished goods burnt/damaged in the fire and also another amount of Rs. 2,28,834/- representing Modvat credit on the inputs contained in such burnt/damaged goods. He states that the Commissioner has confirmed these duty demands and has also imposed equi...
Multi Arc India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC18Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the notice issued to the appellant under Section 28 of the Act demanding duty alleged to have been short paid is barred by limitation or not.2. The facts in dispute are as follows. The appellant had registered contract with the Bombay Customs House under the Project Import Regulations, 1986 in order to claim classification of the goods imported by it in Heading 98.01 of the tariff and thereafter proceeded to import goods. The goods which were imported in 1995-96 were provisionally assessed to duty pending finalisation of the contract.The date of finalisation of the contract is not clear. However it is clear that subsequent to the finalisation, an order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 3-8-1999 ordering refund of the amount deposited by the appellant as a security when its contract was registered. The notice alleging short levy is dated 29-1-2000.3. Before the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals), the ...
Govind Tible Vs. the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra Through Hom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR782; 2003(4)BomCR509; 2003(3)MhLj740
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard.2. The Petitioner who was appointed vide order dated29.11.1990 as constable (GD) in Central Reserve PoliceForce (for short 'CRPF') reported for duty to theAdditional Deputy Inspector General of Police, GroupCentre, CRPF, Nagpur on 10.12.1990. The Petitioner wasundergoing rotational training at Lachi Camp on 15.4.1994.The personnel undergoing rotational training including thePetitioner at Lachi Camp were ready to move down foroutdoor exercise on Amarpur Reserve Forest area and werewaiting for civil police vehicle. When the vehicle didnot arrive till 8 hours, the in-charge training - ShriP.K. Choudhary, A/Commandant asked them to break off anddirected them to go to their respective barracks. ShriP.K. Choudhary, A/Commandant OC E/64/B CRPF andDr. Lowrence Bando Medical Officer of 37 Bn. CRPF weresitting outside the Quarter Guard at Lachi Camp. ThePetitioner is alleged to have appeared beforeP.K. Choudhary, A/Commandant and enquired about thesanction of his leave. He...
Mohandas (Sic) Khemani Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Addl. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)59; 2003BomCR(Cri)937
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Bagve for the petitioner and Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, APP for the State. Petition is filed by the father of the detenu. The name of the detenu is Pursushottam Mohandas Khemani. He came to be detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) by order dated 9.4.2002.2. The detention has been challenged by the detenu on number of grounds which are about 16 in number. They are in paragraph 5 sub-paragraphs (i) to (xvi). Mr. Bagve however restricted himself to certain grounds.3. The incident giving rise to the detention order is that on 10.10.2001, the Officers of Air Customs intelligence Unit and Police Department of Chhtrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai, kept watch on a passenger by name Purushottam Mohandas Khemani i.e. the detenu. He arrived on that date from Singapore by Qantas Airlines Flight. He tried to hand over a polythene carry-bag to a loader / utility hand of M/s. Cambata Aviati...
Shri Dharma @ Kumar Sonadi Tewar Vs. Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1590; 2003CriLJ2368; 2003(4)MhLj337
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. This petition is filed by the detenue himself. He is detained under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous persons Act, 1981 [herein after referred to as 'the MPDA Act'] by detention order dated 17th July 2002. The detention is challenged in this petition on as many as 40 grounds. However, counsel for the petitioner restricted himself to Ground Nos. (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii), and (xv).2. It is necessary to clarify that Ground Nos. (v), (vi) and (vii) are about C.R. No. 2/2002 which was the basis of the detention and, the contention raised is that the manner in which the offence is alleged to have committed by the detenue does not affect the public order the other grounds from (viii) to (xv) [excluding Ground No. (xiv)] are pertaining to only one aspect viz. non application of mind by the detaining authority to the important facts and, supplied wrong da...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Bom)59; [2003]261ITR82(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This group of references raise common questions of law and fact and, therefore, they are disposed of together by this common judgment.2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts in Income-tax Reference No. 201 of 1995. In this group of references, two questions of law have been referred to us for the opinion by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Question No. 1 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction of Rs. 19,17,820 on account of amount paid by the State Bank of India to its subsidiaries towards opening of new branches ?'Arguments :3. Mr. R. V. Desai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, contended that the State Bank of India had provided subsidy to its subsidiaries, viz., the State Bank of Saurashtra, the State Bank of Patiala, etc., under Section 48 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959. He cont...
Emmel Financial Services Vs. Nikko Stock Brokers P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR369(Bom); 2003(5)BomCR770; [2005]126CompCas281(Bom); 2003(2)MhLj570; [2003]46SCL111(Bom)
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Chamber Summons has been filed by the Garnishee for setting aside the Warrant of Attachment dated 16th August, 2002 and the Garnishee Notice dated 7th September, 2002.2. Briefly stated, the applicants secured Award to the extent of amount of Rs. 2.60 crores on 31st December, 2001 against the respondents, concerning certain claim. According to the applicants, the applicants were entitled to receive that amount from the Garnishee-Bombay Stock Exchange, Mumbai. Accordingly, Warrant of Attachment was issued on 16th August, 2002. As a consequence of Warrant of Attachment, Garnishee Notice dated 7th September, 2002 was served on the Garnishee. Accordingly, the present Chamber Summons has been filed by the Garnishee for the relief afore-stated.3. The main contention raised before this Court is that the day on which Warrant of Attachment was issued i.e. on 16th August, 2002, no amount was due and payable by the Garnishee, either to the applicants or to the respondent...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. a Public Sector Company Establish ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR197(Bom); 2003(5)BomCR146
A.P. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 of setting aside the Award passed by the learned Umpire Mr. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud (retired CJI). Short facts concerning the Award in question may be stated as follows: By a telex dated 6.6.1988, the appellant placed order on the respondent for design engineering, fabrication, supply and installation and testing and commissioning of pipelines for the D-18 field. The telex set out the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties. Clause (1) of the telex referred to technical specifications and scope of work. These had to be 'as per the tender document and as clarified through exchange of various telexes and letters'. Clause 2 of the telex called 'delivery schedule' provided that the complete scope of the work to be completed by end of October 1988. The price payable for the total work was FF 2,65,40,000. One of ...
Force Shipping Limited Vs. Ashapura Minechem Limited, a Company Incorp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR142; 2003(3)ARBLR32(Bom); 2003(6)BomCR328; 2003(4)MhLj329; [2003]46SCL264(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. Petitioners by the present application have sought enforcement of the foreign Award dated 16.10.2001 and 11.6.2002. The Respondents have put in appearance and have opposed enforcement principally on two grounds.It is firstly contended that the agreement between the parties only provides that the place of arbitration will be London. The clause does not set out the law to be followed by the Arbitral Tribunal. Considering this to be a foreign Award and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. and Anr. : [2002]2SCR411 , the challenge to the Award would have to be under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and consequently the application as filed is not maintainable. It is secondly contended that it is fundamental policy of Indian Law that the Awards has to be reasoned. In the instant case, though the arbitrator has given reasons, yet at the same time, it is set out that the reasons do not form part of the award and the reason...
Wasudeo S/O Kashiram Dalal and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1586; 2003(3)MhLj44
S.T. Kharche, J.1. Rule, Rule taken up forthwith for final hearing with the consent of the parties.2. Heard Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Sonare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Choudhari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.3. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of Criminal Case No. 304 of 1997 awaiting disposal in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, arising out of Crime No. 223/1997 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.4. It is not disputed that the applicant No. 1 is the husband, applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, applicant No. 4 is the brother-in-law and applicant No. 5 is the sister-in-law of respondent No. 2 Sandhya Dahake. It is not disputed that the respondent No. 2 had lodged First Information Report on 27-8-1997 at police station, Pratap Nagar, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »