Mumbai Court October 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.
Munshaw Industries, Proprietor, Texind Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Emplo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR39; 2005(3)BomCR376; [2005(106)FLR346]; (2005)IILLJ112Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This is an Appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act against the order of the Employees State Insurance Court The trial Court has found that the appellant and its sister concerns are liable to pay a certain amount as contributions to the Employees State Insurance Corporation with interest @ 6% per annum.2. Five establishments which according to the appellant are independent of each other are being run by various members of Munshaw family. According to the appellant, Munshaw Industries, a proprietory concern, is a manufacturing unit and is taken over by Texind Corporation. Texind Corporation is a trading concern dealing in export of goods manufactured by Munshaw Industries. Munshaw Engineering Industries Private Limited manufactures electronic goods, yarn, cleaners, stabilisers, ribbon racks, etc. Munshaw Investment Company is an investment Company. Paramount Services conducts the maintenance, erection and servicing of machinery of Tex...
Narayan Atmaram Borase Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR410; 2005(2)MhLj1093
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. The petitioner was at the relevant time, a Sarpanch of village Varud, Tq. Shindhkheda, District Dhule. It was alleged against the petitioner that he has been a party to serious misappropriation of the funds. Therefore, an action was initiated against him, on the basis of the audit report made by the Deputy Chief Auditor and Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Shindhkheda. Firstly, a preliminary report was submitted that he was responsible for misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 3,95,213/- in Jawahar Rojgar Yojana. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch on 20-11-2002 but was proceeded on the basis of this report and the Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad passed a resolution on 8-3-2004 to take an action under Section 39(1) and (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, referred to as 'the said Act'), against the pet...
Vasantrao Vinayakrao Deshmukh Vs. Tulsabai W/O Karbhari Bondare and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj943
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 30th January, 1989, passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon allowing the appeal filed by the respondents, bearing Civil Appeal No. 344/1983.3. The property, bearing Gat No. 211/A (old Survey No. 98/1), admeasuring 2 H 30 Rs of village Rohini, Taluka Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'), originally belonged to one Tatyasaheb Parbatrao Deshmukh. By a document dated February 16, 1972, styled as a 'conditional Sale-Deed', (Exh-20), he transferred the suit property to Second Karbhari Tanha Bondare for a sum of Rs. 3500/-. Present respondents are the heirs of the purchase Karbhari Tanha Bondare. The said conditional sale-deed contains a condition that in the event the vendor returned the sum of Rs. 3500/-within a period of three years, the purchaser would reconvey the suit land. Subsequently, by another ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Gujarat Ship Trading Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT429Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing the Ld DR, a common order is being passed in these appeals since the issue involved is the same.2. After hearing Ld DR and considering the written reply on record we proceed to decide the matter. It is found- a. These appeals have been filed by revenue and facts herein, have been taken from the case C 209 for reference. The facts in brief are, the respondents presented Bills of Entry on 11.9.2004 for clearance of a vessel imported for breaking at port Alang district Bavnagar Gujarat. Value for duty purpose was declared at US$ 7,465.55 L.T. @ US$ 167.00/LDT on the basis of a MOA dated 05.09.2000 with M/s Cane Shipping and Trading S.A.Liberia they (herein after referred to second MOA) & the Respondents. The Respondents importers bill was assessed finally on 15.10.2001. The revenue filed an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) Customs Ahmedabad to consider the purchase price of the vessel as US$ 12,80,341.80 for 7,465.55 L.T.@ US$ 171.507 L.T. as per MOA dated 17.08.2000...
The Commissioner of Central Vs. Kaygee Foam Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT452Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has classified "Horn Button Assembly and Horn Cover" under he has classified "Horn Button Assembly and Horn Cover" under Chapter sub heading 8708.00 as parts of motor vehicle. On the other hand, the revenue's contention is that such goods are properly classifiable under heading 8512.00 as signal equipments.2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri S Narayanan, Ld Advocate and Shri. Vimlesh Kumar, SDR, we find that the issue is no more res-integra and has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Addom Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore reported in 1997 (96) ELT 592 (T). In the said decision, the Tribunal after taking into account the section note 2 (f) of Section XVII and explanatory notes to HSN has held that the electric horns, which are to be fitted in four wheeler and two wheeler are properly classifiable under heading 85.12 and not as parts of mo...
Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai
1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed adjudication order of demand of Service Tax of Rs. 3,74,01,709/- computed at the rate of 5% of the total value of taxable service of Rs. 74,80,34,172/- paid by M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as BAL) to M/s. Kawasaki Heavy industries, Japan (hereinafter referred to as KHI) in respect of consulting engineering services rendered by KHI together with interest as per Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 3,84,500/-.2. The brief facts of the case are that BAL manufacture, inter alia, motor vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. One variety of motor vehicle is two wheeled motor cycles sold under the brand name "Kawasaki Bajaj-KB 100" for the manufacture of which the appellants entered into periodic agreements with KHI, Japan. Agreements are dated 6-8-94, 9-3-98, 2-2-02 and 7-11-02. In terms of the agreements, KHI provided technica...
Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Indian Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR538
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioners challenge the Award Part-I passed by the Labour Court at Thane in Reference No. 81 of 1985 on 11th May 1994 holding that the domestic enquiry held and conducted or proving the charges against the respondent No. 1 was not fair and proper and, therefore, the petitioner employer is at liberty to prove the charge of misconduct by adducing the evidence.3. Few facts relevant for the decision are as under:-The respondent No. 1, who was working in Maintenance Department of the petitioners factory at 1st Pokhran Road, Kajiwada, Thane. The respondent No. 1 having joined the services from 1st January 1980 was allegedly found involved in a quarrel with a co-worker by name V.K. Shirishkar on 15th December 1982 after the shift hours while traveling in company's bus to Kopri Colony, Thane Railway Station. It appears that the allegation against the respondent No. 1 included assault on the co-w...
Shantabai Dada Koli Vs. Bhujgonda Adagonda Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR344; 2005(1)BomCR533
Bhosale D.B., J.1. This petition filed by the tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order dated 20-12-1990 rendered by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short 'MRT') by which respondent Nos. 1 to 3 landlord's revision has been allowed and the order dated 2-2-1987 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer has been set aside. As a result thereof the order dated 10-9-1962 passed by the A.L.T. in the proceedings initiated by the landlord under Section 29 read with 14, 25 and 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'Tenancy Act') stood confirmed by the MRT.2. A short yet important question involved in the instant writ petition is as to whether the tenant in possession of Inam Lands, which are governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962 (for short 'Act of 1962'), requires to exercise the right conferred under Section 32-0 of the Tenancy Act in the prescribed manner and withi...
Ramanlal Hemlal Bhatiya and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj1121
D.S. Zoting, J.1. Heard Mr. Nitin R. Bhavar, Advocate holding for Mr. R. N. Dhorde, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N. H. Borade, learned A.G.P. for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 and Mr. A. H. Kasliwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.2. The petition is directed against the order dated 22-10-1992 passed by respondent No. 1, in an appeal preferred by the present petitioners.3. Facts relevant for the decision of this petition, may be briefly stated as under:The petitioners are running Cinema Theatre at Dharangaon, in Erandol Taluka of Jalgaon District, in the premises bearing Municipal House No. 3176, since the year 1961. The respondent No. 4 is the landlord of the petitioners. The District Magistrate/Collector, Jalgaon respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 18th April, 1990 suspending the licence of the petitioners for a period of three months commencing from the date of the order i.e. 18-4-1990, on the ground that the petitioners have not provided the facility of telep...
Suleman Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: I(2006)BC221
A.M. Joshi, J.1. Present revision application is arising out of judgment and order dated 4.1.2000 passed by Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kelapur, passed in execution petition R.D. No. 34/1996 filed by the judgment debtor. In response to the show-cause notice, the judgment debtor filed objection, which has been decided partly in favour of the judgment debtor, who is aggrieved by the said order and is before this Court in the present revision application.2. The brief facts are that, the respondent/original plaintiff had filed Reg. Civil Suit No. 64/83 which was decided by judgment and order dated 14th March, 1984. The operative order contemplated the payment of suit amount in four instalments, first instalment commencing from 15th April, 1984 and the amount to carry interest at the rate of 18%. The judgment debtor failed to pay the very first instalment and the decree holder waited for long time and ultimately filed the execution. The objection to the execution as can be pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »