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.
Rifostar Equipment Sales Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT78Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals involve common facts and arise out of the same order. These are, therefore, dealt with in this single order.2. M/s. North Star Ice Equipment Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. (NIEC), manufacture "Flake Ice Makers". They had earlier claimed classification under subheading 8419.00 with the benefit of Notification No. 75/87, and later they claimed classification under sub-heading 8418.00 with the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. On the information that the value of bought out items was not being added by them to the assessable value of such machines, enquiries were instituted. Resultant show cause notice alleged that the correct classification of goods was under sub-heading 8419.00 and that the benefit of neither Notification No. 75/87 nor Notification No. 1/93 was available. It was alleged that the goods bore the brand name "North Star" which belonged to the "North Star Icemaker Equipment Corporation of U.S.A" and, therefore, the benefit of the SSI exemption was not available on...
S. Narendra Kumar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT1001Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Since the Appeal E/540/02 relating to the same issue has been listed today, we waive deposit of the duty demanded in application E/Stay -1974/01 in Appeal E/2348/01 and take up the appeal itself for disposal, with the consent of the departmental representative for hearing along with the other appeal.2. The common question for consideration in both these appeals is the classification of the product that the appellant manufactured and cleared. The substance "Jaljira powder" has the following composition ; 3. The appellant had claimed classification of these goods under Heading 09.03 of the tariff. This heading covers spices. Following issue of notice, the adjudicating authority, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in each case, classified the product under Heading 21.08, which is for "other edible preparation." 4. The classification of the product almost identical of the composition one under consideration and described as jaljira powder has already been deci...
Shri V.S. Gajul, Being Ex-junior Clerk, Working in the Court of the Le ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR847; 2003(4)BomCR516
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Upset by the order dated 29.01.1992 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and rejection of his administrative appeal. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner who was working as junior clerk in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mohol was served with the chargesheet on 16.02.1991. The charges against the petitioner, in substance, were:(i) He was directed to maintain daily-diary and to produce the same before the presiding officer. However, he neglected those directions and disobeyed the orders of the superiors;(ii) He was habitual late-comer and inspite of warning there was no improvement;(iii) He remained absent at the time of flag-hoisting ceremony on 15.8.1990 and(iv) His behaviour with his co-workers was hostile.The Inquiry Officer was appointed and after following reasonable procedure and giving the petitioner full opportunity of filing...
Indian Air Force Employees Union Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR804; 2003(5)BomCR817; 2003(4)MhLj609
A.S. Aguiar, J.1. The petitioners are a Union registeredunder the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 andrecognized by the Government of India. TheUnion, at the time of filing the petition,consisted of 450 members from Grade-C & Grade-Dcategory i.e. equivalent to Class-III andClass-IV civilian employees working in25-Equipment Depot, Air Force Station, SouthDeolali. The total strength of the staff at thesaid unit was about 700. The group-C and group-Demployees are the industrial and non-industrialworkers. Group C cadre consists of carpenters,clerks, motor drivers, painters, stores keepersetc. Group-D cadre consists of safaiwalas,watchman, cooks etc.2. The petitioners state that respondentNo. 4 was and is deducting from the salaries andwages paid to the members of the said petitionerUnion and other civilian working in the saidequipment department a sum of Rs. 50/- per month inrespect of Group-C worker and Rs. 30/- per monthin respect of group-D worker under Section 4 ofthe Maharashtra State Ta...
Divisional Controller, State Transport Division Vs. Shri Gajanan Savla ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR84; 2003(5)BomCR169; [2003(97)FLR756]
R.J. Kochar, J.1.The Divisional Controller of the MaharashtraState Road Transport Corporation is aggrieved by theAward dated 2.3.1993 passed by the Presiding Officerof the Labour Court at Sangli in Reference (IDA)No. 66 of 1989, awarding reinstatement with 50%backwages till the retirement of theRespondent-employee on the basis of the birth date19.6.1936. The Respondent-employee has alsochallenged the said Award to the extent of denial of50% backwages to him. According to him, he wasentitled to reinstatement with full backwages andcontinuity of service. 2. It appears that the Respondent-employee wasemployee by the Petitioner-Corporation in the year1969 as a Driver. He had produced a School LeavingCertificate in the year 1971 from a School by nameJeevan Shikshan Mandir, Phaltan showing his birthdate as 10.6.1939. It further appears that in theyear 1980 Respondent-employee was transferred to theSatara Division. It is the case of thePetitioner-Corporation that on a routine verificationof t...
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR90; 2003(3)ARBLR212(Bom); 2003(5)BomCR173; [2003]45SCL323(Bom)
A.P. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition under Sections 16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as the Act. By this petition, the appellant prayed for remitting the award passed by the learned Arbitrator for reconsideration of the appellants claim arising out of foreign exchange rate fluctuation and, in the alternative, for setting aside the Award pertaining to the rejection of the appellant's said claim arising out of the foreign exchange rates flcutuation. The learned Single Judge rejected both the prayers and dismissed the petition. The relevant facts and circumstances leading upto the appeal are stated hereinafter.2. The appellant is a company engaged in the construction business. The respondent is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. By its Tender Notice dated 4th April, 1988, the respondent invited sealed item rates tenders for the work of construction of tunnel between Sewree...
Shakuntala T. Sonawane Vs. Narendra A. Khaire
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom323; 2003(2)ALLMR861; 2003(5)BomCR182; 2003(3)MhLj484
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This petition for appointment as the Guardian of minor Aniruddha son of Narendra and Alka Khaire and his property without security and without remuneration, is filed by his real maternal grand mother (petitioner herein), under the provisions of Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890.3. Briefly stated, the respondent and Alka (daughter of petitioner) got married on 19-4-1994 at Mumbai. Out of the said wedlock minor Aniruddha was born on 29-1-1995. However, even before the birth of Aniruddha, said Alka, parted his company due to unpalatable relations with her husband (respondent herein), and started staying with her parents, namely, the petitioner and her husband. During the stay with her parents, minor Aniruddha was born on 29-1-1995. On that very day, the respondent had instituted divorce proceeding in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai on the ground of cruelty and desertion. During the pendency of the said proceeding, the custody of the minor Anirud...
Oriental Containers Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR858; 2003(5)BomCR663; 2003LC550(Bombay); 2003(157)ELT503(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioners challenge the order in original dated 9-6-1988 (issued on 16-9-1988) passed by the then Collector of Customs, Bombay seeking to confiscate the goods imported by the Petitioners under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act' for short) with an option to redeem the same on redemption fine of Rs. 28,00,000/-.2. The petitioners inter alia manufacture containers and for that purpose import tin sheets from time to time. On or about 24th August, 1987 the petitioners entered into a contract with an American Firm for import of 1,000 metric tonnes of prime quality tin plate. On entering into the contract, the petitioners opened irrevocable letter of credit to cover the value of 1000 metric tons of tin plate prime. The foreign supplier shipped 388 bundles of Tin Plate Prime equivalent to 482.63 metric tonnes from Mexico on vessel s.s. 'LUCKY SCOPE' and the said vessel arrived at Bombay some time in Janurary, 1988. The certificate of origin...
Narsing S/O Nagorao Hippargekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR601]; 2004(1)MhLj947
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Writ Petition No. 976 of 1985 was decided by us on 21st October, 1999. The petitioner was Shri Rajaram Narharrao Gajbhare, who had raised the grievance regarding his promotion to the post of Head Master in a secondary school run by Shri Sant Gadge Baba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Degloor which was impleaded as respondent No. 3 and his inter-se seniority in the post of Assistant Head Master. The present petitioners were impleaded as respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 respectively, in the said Petition. While allowing the said petition, we had directed the respondent No. 1 Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded to redraw the seniority list of Assistant Teachers working under the respondent No. 3 as on 8th July, 1982 in different secondary schools run by it and decide the petitioner's claim for promotion, in any of those schools, within a period of three months. Pursuant to the said directions, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded heard the ...
Arun S/O Harendra Deotale Vs. Narhar S/O Mahadeorao Pande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR536; (2004)106BOMLR772
P.S. Brahme, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the appellant/original plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Appeal No. 672/1984 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Nagpur on 19.9.1989 reversing the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 1784/1983 passed by 18th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur on 22.11.1984, decreeing the suit of plaintiff for possession.2. This second appeal came to be admitted on 12.3.1990 by this Court on substantial question of law as stated in ground No. 1(a) as under :1(a) Whether the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 1784/1983 was tenable without permission of the Rent Controller as required by Clause 13 of the Rental Control Order.3. In order to decide the controversy involved in this second appeal, it would be appropriate to state in brief plaintiffs claim in the suit. For the sake of convenience the appellant and respondent in this appeal are hereinafter referred as Plaintiff and Defendant respectiv...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »