Mumbai Court January 2004 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.
Bapurao S/O Narayan Telrandhe Vs. Shalik Rambhau Sarate and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR450; 2004(4)BomCR738; 2004(3)MhLj1095
S.T. Kharche, J.1. Rule taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.2. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in this petition the order dated 28-2-1990 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur (for short, the Tribunal) confirming the order of the Tahsildar restoring the suit field to the respondent No. 1 and setting aside the order of the Tahsildar by which compensation was determined and remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry in relation to value of the improvement made by the petitioner in the suit field and then to pass fresh order to that extent is under challenge.3. Brief facts sofar as relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under :The deceased Rambhau Durga Sarate is the owner of agricultural land bearing survey No. 2-9/5 admeasuring 3.25 acres and survey No. 2-9/1 area 7.25 acres, total area 10.50 acres. This land was sold by the deceased by virtue of ...
M.R. Fernandes Vs. Air India Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR289
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai, on 5th September, 2003 dismissing the complaint filed under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of the petitioner in the complaint was that his services were terminated by the respondents solely on account of refusal to operate flight on 15th March, 2003 to Dubai and further to Trivandrum, and that the termination of the services was made by an order dated 1lth April, 2003 to be effective from 11th May, 2003 and that in reply to the complaint of the petitioner, no other reason was assigned for termination of his services. Being so, even though the Clause (v) of the contract between the parties empowered the respondents to terminate the contract with one month's notice, without assigning any reason, the said clause was ab initio bad in law, and was not binding...
Vival Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC407
1. The dispute in this case relates to classification of a product called "Selsun Blue", which is a 1% Selenium Sulfide Shampoo, manufactured by the appellants. The demand of duty confirmed against the appellants on the clearances of the product for the period July 2000 to June 2001 is to the extent of about Rs. 63 lakhs. There is also a penalty of about Rs. 6.3 lakhs on the appellants.2. We have examined the records and heard both sides. In the impugned order, we note, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has followed an earlier order passed in a dispute of classification of the same product for an earlier period. The impugned order also notes that the appeal filed by the party against that earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the classification of the product is pending with this Tribunal. With reference to this aspect, Ld. Counsel for the appellant points out that their appeal (E/1320/2002) is still pending. Ld. Counsel further submits that, in the said appeal this Tribunal has...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Madhu Crimpers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT414Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The present appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise is directed against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), The respondent's factory was visited by the officers on 11.4.1996 and it was noticed that 869.5 kgs. of textured yam was not accounted in the RG1 register and certain invoices dated 9.4.1996 and 10.4.1996 which were issued involving duty of Rs. 39149/-, but which were not debited in the RG23A register. The Ld. Commissioner took the view that penalty under Rule 173Q(1) is imposable but the amount was reduced to Rs. 2000/- and confiscation was set aside. In revenue's appeal, the setting aside of confiscation is challenged.3. Admittedly this is a case where though the invoices have been prepared, the actual duty has not been debited in respect of the goods issued from the factory, besides the quantity of 869 kg. of textured yarn was unaccounted.4. Though the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1) has been held valid, the reduction of penalty to Rs. 20...
Miltan Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT122Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal No. E/1141/03 is filed by Revenue and E/1349/03 by the assessee against the very same order in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). These appeals are being disposed off by this common order. "As discussed in forgoing pages on merits also the case of the appellants does not stand and the appeal is liable for rejection. However, in the light of the facts discussed above, I modify the original order No. 28/Th-III/RRB/2002-03 dated 21.03.2002 passed by she Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-III Division of erstwhile Mumbai-VII Commissionerate and reduce the duty liability to the extent of actual modvat credit availed on the impugned goods and request the appeal for not complying with the waiver order as well as on merits. The appeal and waiver application on disposed accordingly on modified." a) The assessee is availing modvat credit on common inputs used for manufacturing of goods cleared on payment of duly and exported under bond. The question that arose was the amo...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Fertiplant Engg. Co. P. Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC343
1. This is a revenue appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). In the impugned order the learned Commissioner held that the respondents importers are entitled for claiming interest in terms of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 for the delay in sanctioning their refund claim, He has ordered the payment of interest for the period exceeding the period of 3 months from the date of assent of the president, to the Finance Bill, 1995 whereunder Section 27A was incorporated in the Customs Act, 1962. In the appeal of the revenue, it is claimed that, the appellants refund was disposed off vide order dated 19.12.1994 and was hot pending on the date of the assent.2. The respondents are saying that the initial claim was made within 6 months from the payment of duty. The duty was paid on 23^rd August, 1992. The request for an assessment order was not granted, and was not finalized. Hence initial refund application was made within 6 months from t...
Vicco Products (Bombay) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT86Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application has been filed by "Vicco Products (Bombay) Pvt.Ltd." seeking amendment of the memorandum of the captioned appeal. The appeal was filed by "Vicco Products (Bombay) Ltd." claiming to be successors of a partnership firm by name "Vicco Laboratories". It is stated in this application that an amendment of the name of the appellant is necessitated by certain amendment of the Companies Act, 1956. It is stated that on account of deletion of Section 43A of the Companies Act, the word "Private" was added to the name of the Company with effect from 5-3-2001 and accordingly the company came to be called "Vicco Products (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd.". It is further stated that "Vicco Laboratories" was a partnership firm which was dissolved under a deed of dissolution dated 31-3-86 and that all the assets and liabilities of the said firm had vested in the aforenamed company with effect from 1-4-86. The applicant wants to rely on the dissolution deed as also to amend certain pleadings in the...
Indian Sailors Home Society Vs. S.D. Pathare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR358; [2004(101)FLR731]; 2004(2)MhLj816
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the respondent in-person. Perused the records. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 3-12-2001 passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai on an application filed by the respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'.2. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the respondent was employed with the petitioners since December, 1986. In February 1991 the services of the respondent came to be terminated and being aggrieved, the respondent raised dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for necessary adjudication and by award dated 8-7-1997 the respondent was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and with continuity of service. The respondent was accordingly reinstated in service by the petitioners. While the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent was pending for adjudication, a settlement was arrived at between the p...
Shri Mohd. Ayub AlimuddIn Shaikh @ Chikana Ayub Vs. Shri M.N. Singh an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj303
S.S. Parkar, J.1. By this petition the petitioner challenges the order of detention issued under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981.2. The impugned order of detention was issued on 8th June 2001 and the same came to be served on 7/2/2003 i.e. after more than one year and seven months. The said order of detention was issued on the basis of one C.R. bearing No. 76 of 2001 registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC and under the provisions of the Arms Act and on the basis of two in-camera statements. The petitioner was arrested in the said offence and thereafter was released on bail. When the impugned order of detention was issued on 8th June, 2001 the petitioner was on bail since 9/5/2001. However, when the order of detention was executed on the petitioner on 7/2/2003 he was already in custody and the order had to be served on him in prison. In...
Keshav Dhondi Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1521
P.V. Kakade, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 18-1-1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No, 149 of 1997, wherein the appellant was convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month on first count and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs, 100/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month, on second count.2. The facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are thus --The appellant and his wife Kamal along with their two children were residing at. Amnapur. Their eldest son was residing with Kamal's brother Prakash (PW 8). The eldest son used to visit the house of the appellant once in a fortnight. The accused was previously employed at Klrloskarwadi. He left service and was cultivating his lands. He was addict to alcohol and being under...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »