Mumbai Court February 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.
Wockardt Hospital and Heart Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT270Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants herein imported medical equipment with spares/accessories against Custom Duty Exemption Certificate issued by the Director General of Health Services (DGHS), New Delhi, claiming benefit of exemption from duty in terms of notification 64/88-Cus.dated 1.3.1988, which was extended. The goods were cleared and installed in the appellants' Institute at Bangalore. Information was received that the conditions of the notification inter alia that free treatment should be provided to at least 40% of the outdoor patients, that free treatment should be provided to all indoor patients belonging to families with an income of less than Rs. 500/- per month and that at least 10% of all the hospital beds should be reserved for such patients for this purpose etc., have been contravened and hence a detailed enquiry was initiated. Officers from the Preventive unit of the Bangalore Commissionerate visited the hospital and physically verified the equipment. The hospital was not able to prod...
Laxmi Organic Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT83Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the recovery of interest of Rs. 16,085/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the lower authority. The part of the order recovering CENVAT credit of Rs. 3,65,107/- is not contested. The order of the Assistant Collector was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), who affirmed the said order. Hence the appeal to the Tribunal.2. As mentioned earlier the appeal is directed only against the portion the order requiring them to pay interest and penalty. The appellants had taken cenvat credit on certain raw materials/inputs such as steel angels, channels, HR coils etc during the period December 2001 to March 2002 and utilised the same for fabrication and the manufacture of M.S.Tanks to be used in the factory premises. The M.S. Tanks was erected and installed on foundation, which means the same was attached to the earth and was an immovable property. The appellant reversed the credit in view of CBEC circular No. 58/12002-EX dated 15.1....
M.R. Kulkarni and ors. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra, Nationalised Bank Cons ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR612; 2004(5)BomCR743; (2004)IILLJ1007Bom
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners before this Court are the ex-employees of respondent bank. They have resigned from the services of respondent No. 1 between 28th February, 1987 and 1st August, 1992. They have put in services ranging from 16 to 30 years and at eth time of resignation were aged between 40 years and 59 years. It is the case of the petitioners that they had to resign because the voluntary retirement scheme was not introduced by the respondent No. 1 bank till 1st June, 1991 though in several other Nationalised Banks it was introduced between 1986-87. It is contended that though the voluntary retirement scheme was effective from 1st June, 1991, the petitioner No. 13 was not aware of its introduction as no wide and adequate publicity was given to the said scheme. He resigned as on 1st August, 1992 and at the relevant time had put in 30 years of service. The Officers of respondent No. 1 even though were duty bound to bring it to his notice, did not do so. In the other banks,...
D.B. Mehta, Vs. Ramesh Rikhavdas Shah and State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ403; 2004(3)MhLj3
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard Ms. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Saste, learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 2.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 waive service. Heard finally, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.3. By this petition, the petitioners have impugned an order dated 3.3.2003 rendered by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Gr.Bombay, in Criminal Revision Application No. 574 of 2002, by which the revision has been partly allowed. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, the order dated 26.7.2002 passed by the learned Magistrate, in Case No. 17/S/2002 rejecting their application seeking recalling of the process and discharge has been affirmed. The revision was preferred by the petitioners and one Vijaysingh Bhatia. By the impugned judgment, Vijaysingh Bhatia has, however, been discharged.4. The petitioners and Vijaysingh Bhatia were shown as accused Nos. 2, 9, 11 an...
Bhai S. Patil and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Secre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR648; 2004(2)BomCR688
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. All these three Writ Petitions are filed by candidates whose names were forwarded by the Employment Exchange for being considered by the respondent No. 2-Thane Zilla Parishad for the posts of Shikshan Sevaks as Primary Teachers. This was as per Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2000. The case of all these petitioners is that they were selected for these posts since according to their information their names figured in the select list of August, 2000. The submission is made on the basis of an undertaking which was taken from them. This undertaking is as per the form given in Annexure 'A' to this Government Resolution. These petitions, therefore, seek an order that appointment orders be issued to all the petitioners in these three Writ Petitions.2. As far as Writ Petition No. 2272 of 2003 is concerned, it came up for consideration before the Division Bench presided over by the Honourable Chief Justice and Justice Chandrachud on 24th March, 2003. The petitioners p...
Shri Rajaram Bhagwati Tiwari and ors. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR388; 2004(3)MhLj290; 2004(supp.2)BomCR891
ORDERV.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellants-plaintiffs are challenging the Order passed by the Trial Court whereby the Trial Court has held that the appellants-plaintiffs should have valued the plaint as per the prevailing market value of Room No. 302 which would be beyond Rs. 50,000/- and, therefore, that would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. The Trial Court, therefore, returned the plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present Appeal from Order are as follows.2. Appellants are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the original defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants.3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit in the City Civil Court and have averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 had acquired the premises some time in the year 1957 from one Mr. Maharaj. The said premises...
Ganesh Narayan Bhumkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC59
Kakade, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 8th October, 1.999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Sessions Case No. 79 of 1998 wherein the appellant was convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for nine months on first count and to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month on second count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The facts giving rise to the present case, in short, are thus -3. The accused used to work as a driver in State Transport Corporation. Ranjana was the daughter of P.W.1 Leelabai. She married to the accused in the year 1980-81. After the marriage they were leaving together and they begotten two sons from their marriage. Thereafter accused married for the second time with one Jayashree. ...
Smt. Yamunabai Laxman Chavan and ors. Vs. Smt. Sarubai Tukaram Jadhav ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR93; 2004(2)MhLj1004
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The Petitioners are elected members of the Gram Panchayat of Chimbli in the Taluka of Khed in the District of Pune. The First Respondent in Writ Petition No. 5114 of 2003 is the Sarpanch while the First Respondent in companion Writ Petition No. 5115 of 2003 is the Upa Sarpanch. On 25th February 2003, the Petitioners issued a requisition to the Tahsildar, Khed in their capacity as members of the Gram Panchayat proposing to move a motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch and the Upa Sarpanch. The notice spelt out the reasons on the basis of which the requisitionists had decided to move the motion. Immediately thereafter on 25th February 2003, the Tahsildar addressed notices to all the members of the Gram Panchayat including the Sarpanch and the Upa Sarpanch recording that a requisition had been received from Shri Pandurang Vishnu...
Sri Shankaranarayana Construction Co. and anr. Vs. Konkan Railway Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR636; 2004(2)BomCR676; 2004(2)MhLj968
C.K. Thakker, C. J.1. Rule. Ms. Kiran Bagalia, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Advocate, with Mr. D. A. Dubey, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 3. Mr. Shyam Diwan, learned Advocate, with Mr. Ashwin Ankhad and Swapnila Rane instructed by M/s Ashwin Ankhad and Associates, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 4.2. In the facts and circumstances and with the consent of parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing.3. This petition is filed by a partnership firm, challenging arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and unreasonable decision taken by Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, a Government of India Undertaking, respondent No. 1 herein, of awarding contract for construction of B.C. Single line tunnel No. 5 (Bakkal Tunnel) from KM. 43.040 to 48.940 on the Katra Laole section of the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla Rail L...
Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Bal Gangadhar Shetty (Since ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR525; [2004(101)FLR904]; (2004)IIILLJ15Bom
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This appeal is filed by Employees State Insurance Corporation (original defendant No. 2) ('Corporation' for short) against respondent (original plaintiff), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 5th June, 1989 in First Appeal No. 650 of 1979. By the judgment impugned, the learned single Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent- plaintiff, set aside the judgment and decree passed by Bombay City Civil Court dated 20th October, 1978 in S.C.Suit No. 4595 of 1961 and decreed the suit.2. The case of the appellant-Corporation is that respondent No. 1-original plaintiff, was appointed as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on 10th October, 1955. His initial appointment was on 'temporary basis'. He was on a probation for a period of one year and his services were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason during the said period of one year. Thereafter his services were liable to be terminated wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »