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.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sahebrao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: II(2005)DMC777
P.S. Brahme, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 25.10.1990, whereunder respondents were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No. 91/89, by Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana.2. The prosecution against the respondents arises out of suicidal death of victim Sandhya in the morning of 5.6.1989. The victim Sandhya was daughter of witness Kisanrao Deshmukh (PW 7) and Shashikala (PW 3). She was married to respondent Vilas on 10th March, 1988. The respondent Sahebrao Deshmukh and his wife Leelabai Deshmukh are parents of respondent Vilas. The witness Vijay (PW 5 and Sanjay PW 6) are sons of Kisanrao Deshmukh, The victim's elder sister Sheela was given in marriage to elder brother of Vilas. Their marriage took place some 8 to 10 years back. After marriage Sandhya came to reside in matrimonial home with her husband Vilas. Respondent Vilas has a small stationery shop at Buldhana ne...
Bio-star Pharma Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC608
1. Heard both sides and considered the issue and find the same to be classification of Saccharin Tablets IP/BP.2. The ld. Advocate admits the Tablets to be made of Saccharin, a separately defined chemical compound with Tartaric Acid added to effect rapid dissolving action, should be placed under Heading 2925.00 while Revenue wants it under 3824.00/3823.00.3. Considering that HSN Notes under 3824.00 specifically include preparations (e.g. Tablets) consisting of saccharin or its salt and substances such as Sodium bicarbonate (sodium hydrogen carbonate) and Tartaric Acid, not being foodstuff, used as sweatening agents; the said HSN Notes under 29.25 includes Tablet only if there is exclusive use of Saccharin therein. Tablets with Tartaric acid and Saccharin are placed in 3824.00. Such tablets as herein are specifically excluded tablets from 29.25. The preparation is herein excluded from the ambit of that Heading 29.25 are to be approved for classification under 3824.00.Since, it is well ...
Shri AshwIn Doshi Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT488Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant has been imposed a penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Custom Act, 1962 and the appeal against them "It can he seen that the fact regarding undervaluation has been accepted by Shri. Ashwin Doshi and Shri. Doshi has also produced the Manufacturer's Invoice and voluntarily paid the differential duty worked out on the basis of discounted Manufacturer's Invoice and the duty paid by them at the time of assessment of the relevant Bills of Entry. Shri. Doshi also admitted that this is the financer of the consignments imported in the name of M/s. Goodrick Enterprise, and upon his specific instructions to the suppliers the goods have been underinvoiced. The retraction during submissions is only an after thought more so in view of the fact that duty on manufacturers invoice has been paid Moreover statement made before a Custom Officer is necessary and sufficient to be admitted. There is no proof given that there was coercion. As such I am inclined to accept the original submis...
Ramana International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT368Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellants had imported and filed a BE No. 633716, dated 5-1-2000 IGB 1971/91 seeking assessment of 35550 pcs of size 1/2" VHS/Type VCR - Blank Video Cassette (Panasonic) under Heading 8523.90 of ICT and 85239003.20 for ITC.2. The appellants had demonstrated that the goods answered to the description of Heading 85239003.20 by a practical application of the imported cassette working on a SVHS Video Cassette Recorder/M II SVHS VCR system. The Commissioner rejected the claim by holding that entry 85239003.20 covered metal tape for digital videos for delivery professional quality performance M II was required for editing and was not in the VHS format. The S. V.H.S. tapes were of high quality and even if the imported goods could be used in SVHS. VCR they could not be equated to the High quality reproduction propertied of the S quality VHS tapes. Holding analogy of mono and stereo audio cassette it was held that the imports were restricted. Loading of value was ordered and confiscation u...
Shri Dashrath Sahadeo Khade Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Greater M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR688; 2005(1)BomCR334; 2005(1)MhLj413
V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10th January, 2003 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay while disposing of Notice of Motion No. 3361 of 2002 in L.C. Suit No. 4626 of 2002.2. The appellant is the original plaintiff ('plaintiff' for short). The plaintiff has challenged notice under section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ('BMC Act,' for short) issued by the Corporation dated 30tg July, 2002 and the final order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, F/South Ward dated 19th August, 2002 contending it to be bad and illegal.The Facts:3. Plaintiff's case as per statements made in the plaint is as follows:Plaintiff is a tenant of one Ismail Ebrahim Bika Patel of shop No. 11-11E located in the compound of Dharamshi Mansion since 1974. His landlord is one Ismail Ebrahim Bika Patel. This shop is located at 20 ft. entrance gate of Dharamshi Compound. Sometime before 1961-60, the landlord constructed shop covering one of the wicket gates admeasurin...
Dagu Ganpat KaThe and ors. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer No ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR691; 2004(6)BomCR713; 2004(4)MhLj989
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Both these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment as the point raised in this Petitions is identical.2. By these petitions, Petitioners are challenging the Order passed by the respondent No. 1 - Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nashik who had dismissed the application filed by the petitioners in determination of the amount of compensation. The said application which is filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act was rejected solely on the ground that the said application was not filed within limitation.FACTS:3. By an Award dated 22/9/1990, respondent No. 1 - Special Land Acquisition Officer held that the petitioner and other claimants were entitled to Rs. 100/- per sq. meter by way of compensation if lieu of their lands which were acquired from Village Takli. Petitioner and other claimants filed a Reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of the compensation and claimed the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq. meter.4. The Joint District Judg...
Gopal Krishna Raut Vs. the Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR686; 2005(1)BomCR244
V.M. Kanade, JJ.1. petitioner is seeking directions that the land bearing No. 27 in Survey No. 41/4, 44 and 46/7 at Shila Vihar Colony Poud Road, Phata, Erandawane, Pune be declared as unreserved and that the petitioner be permitted to develop the said plot and that the petitioner be paid compensation at the market rate.FACTS:2. Petitioner is the owner of Survey No. 27 Plot No. 41/4, 44 and 46/7 at Shila Vihar Colony, Paud Road Phata, Erandawane, Pune. A development plan was published in Pune City in the year 1972 and, in the said plan, the aforesaid plot was shown under reservation for public purpose viz. 'Ring Railway'. In the subsequent development which came into force in the year 1987, the said plot of land was shown under reservation of 'High Capacity Mass Transport Raut'.3. Since the land was not acquired and the Government failed in its duty in giving effect to the reservation for more than 20 years, the petitioner sent a purchase notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 dated 22/9/20...
Shri Appasaheb Dadasaheb Mohite (Deceased Through Heirs Vasant Appalah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR94; 2004(6)BomCR716; 2004(4)MhLj269
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. All these three writ petitions can be disposed of by common judgment. The land in question is an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 5 and 11/C situated at village Pimplat, Tal.Phaltan, District Satara. The petitioners claim to be the landlords in respect of the suit land and the Respondents as tenants thereof. As the suit land was held by the tenants, proceedings under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 were commenced, in which, by a judgment and order of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) dated 16th March, 1960, statutory purchase in favour of the tenants was declared ineffective as tenants did not appear in the said proceedings. Consequent to this order, landlords applied for restoration of the land. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal by an order dated June 5, 1962, directed the tenants to deliver possession of the suit land to the landlords. Both the aforesaid orders were subject matter of appeals and the Appellate Authority al...
C.J. Patel Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj572
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Manohar, learned counsel for petitioner No . 1, Shri Mohokar, learned counsel for petitioner No. 2, Shri Sonare, AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Kukday, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - Intervenor.2. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the Maharashtra Workmen's Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983, and certain sections thereof on the ground that the field is already occupied by provisions of Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, (Act No. 32 of 1966) and further the Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976, (Act No. 56 of 1976). The above referred Maharashtra Workmen's Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983, will hereinafter be referred to as Maharashtra Act while the Act No. 32 of 1966, will be referred to as Act of 1966 and the Act No. 56 of 1976 will be referred to as Act of 1976, in short.3. The petition is filed by 10 petitioners, who are stated to be companies or firms engaged in manufacturing of beedi...
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. Additional Commissione ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Bom)555; [2005]278ITR521(Bom)
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Manohar, learned senior counsel for the appellant, and Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The present income-tax appeal is directed against the order dated February 28, 2003, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby appeal preferred by the appellant-assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was partly allowed.3. The substantial questions of law involved in the present appeal are thus :(I) Whether the income of the assessee is not exigible to tax by virtue of the exemption under Section 10(20A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(II) Whether the assessing authority and the Tribunal were in gross error in holding that the business of the assessee has not commenced and as such its income under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be computed ?4. Shri Manohar, learned senior counsel for the appellant, states that Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation is a 'development autho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »