Mumbai Court July 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.
Jolly Electrical Industries, Vs. the Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC25
1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad.Vide the said order, the Commissioner had confiscated the parts of Photocopiers, Micro Film Reader Printers, Micro Film Cameras and Paper Shredders imported by the importers holding that the import was of complete machines in SKD condition, and not of the parts as declared in the import documents. The Commissioner applied Rule 2 of "General Rules for interpretation of Schedule" (Customs Import Tariff) (referred to as GIR) and held, that, the goods imported are complete machine and not the parts. The appellant disputes this finding.2. The imports in question have been effected during the period April 93 to March 97 under the cover of 122 Bills of Entry (B/Es). The said imports were effected at Ahmeabad Airport. The appellants are the manufacturer of electronic products in their factory located at Vadodara. The appellants use the imported parts for manufactures of f...
Padela Texturisers Vs. the Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT369Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereunder the appellant's claim benefit of exemption available under Notification No. 01/93 dated 28/02/93 was rejected.2. The facts in brief are that, vide Notification No. 90/94-CE dated 25/04/94, the S.S.I Notification No. 91/93 dated 28/02/93 was amended to insert goods falling under Chapter sub-heading 5403.00 (Polyester Texturised Yarn) as one of the eligible specified goods for the small scale duty exemption. It was noted that from 25/04/94 to 14/06/94 the appellants had claimed concessional rate of duty on the said goods, in terms of the said notification, whereas it was alleged that, the said concessional rate of duty was applicable only where a manufacturer avails of credit of the duty paid on the inputs or the capital goods or both used in or for manufacture of specified goods. It is stated that, before the introduction of Notification No. 90/94-CE, dated 25/04/96, the appellants were availi...
The Commissioner of Central Vs. Cyto Pharmaceuticals Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT413Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is revenue's appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereunder the department's appeal against the adjudication order was rejected. The respondents, M/s. Cyto Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of P or P medicines falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 3003.10. In their classification list effective from 03/04/91, they claimed benefit of Small Scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for their product manufactured for their loan licencee M/s. Group Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd. The value of the said clearance for 1990-91 effected to M/s. Group Pharmaceuticals as Rs. 26,72,200/-. On scrutiny, it was revealed that M/s. Group Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd., have their own factory at MIDC, Tarapur and their turn over for 1990-91 was Rs. 1,97,45,137.34. Thus, the total clearance of M/s. Group Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd., for the preceding financial year 1990-91 was Rs. 2,24,17,337.44 as per clause 3 of the Notification No. 175/86-CE and...
Laxman Irappa Hatti and Suresh Irappa Hatti Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3802; II(2004)DMC505; 2004(4)MhLj415
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Kondedeshmukh, learned A.P.P. for the respondent.2. The applications have approached this Court for being released on bail in C.R. No. 38 of 2003 registered at Gadhinglaj Police Station under Sections 498-A, 307, 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The occurrence in the present case took place on 13.4.2004.3. The applicants, who are real brothers, are alleged to have subjected Sumitra, wife of applicant No. 1, to cruelty and torture so as to coerce her parents to meet their unlawful demand of gold and other valuables and since their demand was not fulfilled, they allegedly committed her murder on 13.3.2004. Sumitra died of extensive burn injuries. She implicated the applicants in her dying declaration recorded after the occurrence. The applicants were arrested in connection with the said crime on 14.4.2004. They filed an application seeking bail on 5.5.2004 which came to be rejected by the Sessions C...
Rajesh Harischandra Kamerkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR363; (2005)ILLJ534Bom; 2004(4)MhLj323
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the Original Application of the petitioner claiming regularization of service by the Government of India.2. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to protection of Casual Labour (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India. The claim of the petitioner is that he is a temporary servant entitled to be regularized in view of para 4 of the above scheme. Para 4 reads thus:Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of the O. M. and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week.)'3. The tribunal has considered this aspect in detail and has found as a fact that even if the entire submissions of the petitioner are ac...
Sadhana Satish Kolvankar Vs. Satish Sachidanand Kolvankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR271; 2005(2)BomCR340; 2005(1)MhLj935
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This Family Court Appeal is filed by wife seeking to challenge the judgment and order dated 11th January 1999 passed by a Judge and order dated 11th January 1999 passed by a Judge, Family Court, Mumbai, on a petition moved by the Respondent-husband being M.J. Petition No. A-147 of 1995. That Petition prayed for a decree of nullity on the ground of non-consummation of marriage owing to the impotence of the Appellant under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the said Act') and in the alternative for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the said Act. The Judge of the Family Court held that both these grounds were established and has granted a decree on both the prayers. Being aggrieved by that judgment and order, the present Appeal has been filed.2. The Appeal having been admitted, there has been a stay of the impugned judgment and order. The Respondent has, therefore not re-married. Under the impugned judgment and order,...
Sureshchandra Prakashchandra Mehta and ors. Vs. Anandrao Bhimshankar T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR115; 2005(1)BomCR322; 2005(2)MhLj704
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated July 26, 1988 in Revision No. MRT-SH-VII-26/85 (TNC.B.218/85). Briefly stated, the lands in question are agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 25A and 25B situated at village Parmeshwar Pimpri, in Solapur district. Late Raoji Bapuchand Mehta was the original owner in respect of the suit land. The Petitioners claim to be successors in interest of the original owner. The Respondents, on the other hand, claim that their predecessor Bhimashankar Sidramappa Thobade, was the tenant in the suit lands. It is not in dispute that partition suit was instituted between the heirs of late Mr. Raoji Bapuchand Mehta in which proceedings, the Civil Court was pleased to appoint Court Receiver. The predecessor of the Respondents, Bhimashankar, is stated to have been appointed by the Court Receiver to continue to cultivate the suit lands on ek sali lease. The civil proceedin...
Shri Madhusudan Waman Desai Vs. the Ratnagiri District Central Co-oper ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR706; 2004(6)BomCR689; (2005)ILLJ1101Bom; 2004(4)MhLj994
V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this Petition, petitioner seeks appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the order of termination dated 14/11/2000 passed by respondent No. 1 - Bank and seeks further direction that the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.2. Petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the year 1964 in the respondent No. 1 - the Ratnagiri District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. which is a Bank registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Petitioner's case is that he was promoted and appointed as Manager of respondent No. 1. Petitioner's case is that his services were terminated after holding an inquiry. Petitioner is challenging the said order of termination on various grounds. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, inter alia, submitted that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable against respondent No. 1 which is ...
Vasanta S/O Sahadeoji Bhoyar Vs. Walmik S/O Shivaji Bansod
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR230; 2005(1)BomCR884; 2004(4)MhLj611
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the original Defendant/appellant herein, against the original plaintiff-respondent herein, and thereby challenged the judgment and decree dated 1st August, 1991, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1990 whereby, judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 88 of 1985 dated 4th April, 1990, was set aside and modified and thereby, directed the defendant to pay; the suit amount with interest and costs. The Second Appeal was admitted on 27th November, 1991, on the following question of law:'Whether the finding of the appellate Court which does not consider the intrinsic evidence supplied by the disputed document would be a proper finding which could be binding in the Second Appeal?'2. The appellant had filed Suit No. 88 of 1985 against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 4,200/- as hand loan based on the agreement dated 13th February, 1982. As the respondent did not repay the said amount, notice was sent to repay the sai...
Mahendra S/O Shankarrao Godbole Vs. Prabhakar S/O Hariram Gulhane and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR755; 2004(4)MhLj1068
A.P. Lavande, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 13-9-2000 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No. 171/2000, dismissing the revision filed by the applicant against the order dated 16-12-1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 242/99 to the extent of issuance of process against the present applicant. The applicant is accused No. 4 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 242/99 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate filed by the respondent No. 1 herein.2. The applicant is an accused No. 4 in Criminal Case No. 242/99 filed by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed Criminal Complaint Case No. 242/99 dated 26-7-1999 against present applicant and three others for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. After verification of complaint, learned Chief Judicial Magi...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »