Mumbai Court September 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.
Jayant Agro Organics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT684Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) licensee, since 1993, for manufacture and export of Refined Castor Oil, Hyderogenated Caster Oil, Hydroxy Stearic Acid and Ricinoletic Acid, etc. They had availed the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 1/95-CE dated 04/01/95 and procured the fuel namely "Furnace Oil" without payment of duty under CT-3 certificates issued, after due compliance of the conditions of the notification.2. It was noticed that vide amendment dated 15/09/98, Notification No.1/95-CE was amended and the benefit of duty free clearance availed in respect of furnace oil processed by this 100% EOU unit was questioned.By issue of a show cause notice demanding duty on furnace oil so procured brought and used by the 100% EOU unit during the period 01/03/2000 to 04/07/2000, this duty was proposed to be recovered from the appellants and not the manufacture of furnace oil.3. The Commissioner (Appeals), against an appeal filed on confirmation of the demands by...
Atmaram Raghunath Pashte Vs. the Chairman, Alyani-gegaon-nandval, Ashn ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR90; 2004(3)BomCR847
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule. Mr. R.D. Rane, learned Additional Government Pleader, on behalf of respondent No. 4, 5 and 6, and Mr. M.S. Lagu, learned Counsel, on behalf of respondent No. 7, appear and waive service of notice of rule. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside an order dated May 23, 2003 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane, respondent No. 4 herein, and to allow the petitioner to continue to work in Dnyandeep Vidyalaya, respondent No. 3 herein, as Head Master and to draw salary in accordance with law.3. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that he was appointed on June 16, 1987 as Assistant Teacher of respondent No. 3-school. Respondent No. 7 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the same school on June 16, 1986. Thus, considering the initial appointment as Assistant Teacher, respon...
Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR653
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.The Backdrop1. On 31st October, 2002 a Bench of eleven Judges of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka : AIR2003SC355 . The judgment of the Supreme Court considered issues and laid down constitutional principles of vital importance to the dispensation of education, particularly educational instruction in institutions of professional and higher learning. Eleven questions were formulated by the Bench covering a wide spectrum relating to the extent of autonomy enjoyed by privately managed institutions, many of them not being recipients of aid from the State: the extent to which that autonomy would include within its purview the selection of students and the determination of fees; the permissible domain of the regulatory power of the State and the ambit of the rights conferred by the Constitution on religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Since 1993, admission...
Prashant Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2003LC647(Bombay); 2003(157)ELT630(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the public notices bearing Nos. 225 I.T.C. (P.N.)/1985-88, dated 6th November 1987 and 235 I.T.C. (P.N.)/1985-88, dated 11th December, 1987 and also seeking declaration that the said notices are illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14,19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also prayed that the show cause notice (Exh. 1) based on the said public notices together with consequential action be quashed and set aside.2. The petitioners are also claiming higher percentage of entitlement of the replenishment licence as a consequence of compliance with the export obligation more than the percentage attached of the Imprest Licence which was issued to them and also raised an issue as to the quantification of the value of export obligation which was required to be discharged by the petitioners putting their own interpretation on the Public Notice No. 235 I.T.C.(P.N.)/85-88, dated 11th December ...
Maharashtra Power Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dabhol Power Co. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Bom38; (2004)1BOMLR833; [2003]117CompCas506(Bom)
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Both the appeals are directed against an order dated April 2, 2003, on Company Petition No. 45 of 2002 passed by the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board, since reported in Maharashtra Power Development Corporation Ltd. v. Dabhol Power Company [2003] 117 Comp Cas 467. Appeal (Lodging) No. 4 of 2003 is filed by the original petitioner while Appeal (Lodging) No. 6 of 2003 is filed by the original respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 before the Company Law Board. For the sake of convenience, the original petitioner is hereinafter referred as 'the appellant' and original respondents are referred to by their respective numbers before the Company Law Board. Respondent No. 1 is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No. 2 is a director of respondent No. 1-company. Respondent No. 3 was also a director of respondent No. 1 till he resigned on June 4, 2002, and was replaced by respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 5 purports to be the managing d...
Sekhsaria Exports Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR917; 2004(1)MhLj415
V. C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the action of the respondents seeking to encash the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners to perform their part of obligation arising from the contracts, if allotted. The petitioners contend that since the offers or bids made by them itself having been withdrawn much before the acceptance thereof, the offers did not culminate in a concluded contracts, as such the respondents were not entitled to invoke bank guarantees alleging breach of contracts on the part of the petitioners.FACTS:2. The facts giving rise petition in nutshell are as under: The petitioners are the partnership firm, inter alia, carrying on business as Importers and Exporters of diverse quantities of cotton. Respondent No. 1 is Union of India. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are the Textile Commissioner and Joint Textile Commissioner respectively.3. By order No. 1/2/89-Cotton, the respondent. No. 2 proclaimed that respondent No. 1 had decided to release export quota of 5...
Prayagchand Hariram Vs. Deota Cloth Centre and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj250
S.G. Mahajan, J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred, by the original plaintiff, i.e. a partnership firm, challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 241 of 1985.2. The plaintiff - firm by name Prayagchand Hariram brought a suit against the defendants, who are the present respondents, for the recovery of price of goods (cloth) sold. The firm is registered with the Registrar of Firms at Nagpur, and the place of business shown in the registration certificate is Pulgaon, District Wardha. However, the firm was carrying on business at Amravati also through Amravati Branch. In the registration certificate, Amravati was not shown as one of the places of business of that firm at the relevant time when the transaction in this suit took place. The learned counsel for plaintiff/appellant informs that subsequently Amravati is also shown as a principal place of business in the registration certificate. The position prevailing at th...
A.P. Moller Singapore Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Director, Direc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR424; 2004(174)ELT156(Bom); 2004(1)MhLj1028
J.P. DEVADHAR, J.:1. Short point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is, whether the adjudicating authority is justified in confiscating the vessel in question, even after holding that neither the owner of the vessel nor the master of vessel, are liable for any penal action2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners are owners of vessel 'm. v. MAERSK CLEMENTINE'. On 7-2-1989 the said vessel was searched by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.). On search, it was found that 1895 pieces of gold biscuits valued at Rs. 7,22,83,922/- were kept concealed in the ceiling of one of the unoccupied cabin (Engineer 'A' on 'B' Deck). The said 1895 gold biscuits were seized under a panchanama for action under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. During the course of investigation, a number of crew members on board the vessel were interrogated and their statements were recorded. In his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 Mr. ...
Krishnakant Sakharam Ghag Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2005(181)ELT0(Bom)
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Rule, returnable early.2. So far as interim relief is concerned, we may observe that while hearing this petition for admission and stay, it has come to our notice that M/s. Parekh Prints Ltd., claiming to be the processors engaged in processing of man-made fabrics falling under Chapters 54 and 55 of the with some others had filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court challenging the levy of excise duty on processing of man-made fabrics. The petitioner herein was also one of the writ petitioners before the Delhi High Court. The petition was filed in the name of his partnership firm M/s. Amit Textile Processors bearing No. 2523 of 1990.3. The batch of petitions challenging levy of additional duty of excise on man-made fabrics was heard by the Delhi High Court and the petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 9th July, 1991.4. The petition filed by the present petitioner was left out when the batch of petitions was decided. Co...
Mangesh Amar Ghorpade Vs. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR483
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. Kulkarni waives notice for the sole respondent.2. As short question is involved, petition taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent.3. The petitioner is in occupation of a Vada Pav stall at Ali No. 52, near Railway Court, Station Road, Kalyan. The petitioner apprehended demolition of the said structure. Therefore, he instituted suit before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan, being Regular Civil Suit No. 338 of 2000. In that suit, application for interim relief was filed, being Exhibit 5, which was allowed on 2nd April, 2002. Essentially, the Civil Court directed the Corporation to maintain status quo in respect of the suit stall till dure process of law was followed, in terms of the decision in Sopan Maruti Thopte v. Pune Municipal Corporation, reported in 1996(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 724 : 1996(2) All.M.R. 383. It is seen that thereafter the Corporation issued notice on 8th April, 2002 purporting it to be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »