Mumbai Court September 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.
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Private Limited Vs. Kherulla Ha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR626; 2005(2)BomCR206; [2005(104)FLR547]; (2005)ILLJ697Bom; 2005(1)MhLj317
V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order 28th April, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition No. 147 of 1995 confirming the order dated 7-10-1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Third Labour Court, Thane in an application filed by the respondent Workman under Section 35C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) claiming wages and other benefits for the period from 2-8-1978 to 5-5-1980.Factual Backdrop:2. The factual backdrop of the case reveals that the workman/respondent No. 1 herein moved the Labour Court at Thane with an application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Act to claim wages and D.A. being an application (IDA) No. 203 of 1981 on the allegations that during the period from 2nd July, 1976 to 11th May, 1980 he was not allowed to resume his duty and that he was not paid his wages with other benefits as detailed in the application. He quantified his claim in the sum of Rs. 26,601.40.3. On being noticed, the original op...
Tata Power Company Limited and anr. Vs. Maharashtra Pollution Control ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR617; 2005(1)BomCR91
1. By this petition, the petitioners are basically challenging the assessment order dated 15-2-1994 of the respondent No. 1, which according to the petitioners is contrary to the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has brought to our notice the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited and Ors., : AIR2001SC2512 . The very same notification which was involved before the Supreme Court is also involved in the present case viz. the notification dated 16th April, 1993. Before the Supreme Court it was contended that the said notification could not be sustained since the Central Government had not complied with the provisions of section 16(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act. Section 16 of the Act reads as under: -'16. Power to amend Schedule I. - (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Officia...
Kachardas Shankarlal Karwa Vs. Shrikrishna Laduram Sharma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR387; 2005(2)BomCR827; 2005(1)MhLj625
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondents. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 26-5-1991 passed by the lower Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 415 of 1989 as well as the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court on 26-6-1989 in Regular Civil Suit No. 137 of 1982.3. The respondent herein filed a civil suit for eviction of the petitioner on two grounds, namely, default in payment of rent and secondly, non-user of the premises without sufficient cause over a period of six months preceding the institution of the suit. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, decreed the suit on both the grounds, and the lower Appellate Court refused to interfere in the said decree of eviction passed against the petitioner. It is also to be noted that the decree of eviction has already been executed and the possession of the suit premises has been taken over by the respondent.4. The c...
Ganapatrao Anandrao Bhosale Vs. Dinkarrao Manyaba Bhosale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR370; 2005(2)BomCR282; 2005(1)MhLj1162
D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. The petitioner-tenant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Judgment and order dated 16-8-1990 rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, Camp at Kolhapur, in the revision application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3-landlords, by which their revision application has been allowed and the orders passed by the authorities below have been quashed and set aside.2. The proceedings were initiated under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, 'Act of 1948') in 1985 at the instance of Anandrao Akaram Bhosale, father of the petitioner. Earlier, the proceedings under section 32G were initiated in 1958 and they were dropped on the ground that the landlady Jankibai was widow. Jankibai died on 17-10-1973. The A.L.T and the Assistant Collector, Miraj Division, Miraj, by their orders dated 26-5-1986 and 1-8-1987 respectively, decided the proceedings in favour of the petitioner declaring him...
Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR837; (2005)IILLJ519Bom
Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. By consent of parties heard forthwith. Petitioner employer, by the present petition, has approached this Court on account of what is alleged to be failure on the part of respondent No. 2 to decide issue 5-A as a preliminary issue, by order dated 21st August, 2004. The issue which was framed read as under :-Whether the reference as framed and worded, referring application dated 24th January, 2004 is maintainable,'2. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition being W.P. 1298/2004 wherein prayer (a) read as under :-(a) This Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari, or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records and proceedings from the Commissioner, Greater Mumbai, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai and after perusing the legality, propriety and validity thereof to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 5th April, 2004 passed in the review application filed...
Laxminarayan S/O Motilal Gupta Vs. Bhagwandas S/O Bhagonelal Sahu and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj646
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - tenant challenges the order of Resident Deputy Collector dated 21-10-1988 passed in Appeal under provisions of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Control Order' for short), granting permission to terminate the tenancy on the ground of sub-tenancy and the subsequent order dated 30-6-1990 passed in Review proceedings by the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati.2. The facts in brief are that the present respondent No. 1 - Bhagwandas owns one house No. 184 in Ward No. 52 of Amravati. Sometimes in the year 1984, he filed Revenue Case No. 108/71(2)/84-85 and contended that the present respondent No. 2 - Chhotelal is his monthly tenant of one room in the said house. He stated that the rent is Rs. 60 per month and that Chhotelal has sub-let the said room to the present petitioner, who was non-applicant No. 2 before...
Pushpanjali Floriculture Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC321
1. The Appellants have imported two consignments of "Refined Coconut Oil" and have sought clearance thereof by filing Bills Of Entry numbers 459958 and 468260 against DFRC Licences which inter alia cover "Antifoaming Agents : (Antifoaming Chemicals)" and "Viscosity Reducing Agents: (Viscosity reducing Chemicals) used as an "Antifoaming Agent" and "Viscosity Reducing Agent" in the manufacture of White Sugar established by the following: i) certificate dated 7^th April 2004 of University Department of Chemical Technology, Mumbai, ii) Letter dated 28^th April 2004 of National Sugar Institute, Government of India, iii) Opinion dated 23^rd June 2004 of IIT, Bombay solicited by the Customs Department. iv) Affidavit dated 12 July 2004 of Dr. S.P. Potnis, Professor of Polkymer Technology and Director of Department of Chemical Technology, University of Bombay, v) Letter dated 7^th April 2004 of The Sugar Technologists' Association of India and vi) Letter dated 11^th June 2004 of Government of ...
Apollo Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT129Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Classification of four products manufactured by the appellants herein arises for determination in the present appeal:- 2. The assessee's claim for classification of the four products as P&P medicaments under CETA sub-heading 3003.10 has been rejected and the first three products have been classified by the authorities below under CETA sub-heading 2936.00 while the fourth product has been classified by the Revenue under CETA sub-heading 3507.00.3. We find that for classification of three products under heading 29.36, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the larger bench decision on classification of intermixtures of vitamins in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi 1994 (72) ELT 197 wherein the Tribunal held classification of preparations such as pentaforte and famitone under CETA sub-heading 2936.00. This decision has been reversed by the apex court as seen from 2003 (152) ELT A92. We also find that classification of these products now stands settled by the ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. K.V. Rao Chhikniwala
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT249Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondents herein filed a claim for refund of duty of Rs. 2,12,530.30 on 23.5.1988 on the ground that as per the Collector's order dated 28.4.1988, they were not required to pay duty on snuff cleared by them during 10.11.1987 to 15.4.1988 as they were not manufacturers of snuff falling under CETA sub-heading 2404.50, but had paid duty during the above period. The refund claim was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 30.11.1988. However, the Assistant Commissioner's order was reviewed on the ground that refund had been erroneously sanctioned and accordingly a show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of erroneous refund, on 1.6.1989. The basis for this notice was that the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 30.11.1988 granting refund had been reviewed and the Commissioner (Appeals) had decided the case in favour of the department and his order was upheld by the Tribunal. The adjudicating authority confirmed duty representing the amount of refund erro...
Shri T.D. Bhatia, Proprietor Vs. the Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT249Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the process of washing acrylic knitted fabric cut to size, and packing them in polythene bag bearing the name "Stay Free Washable Cover", on job work basis for M/s. Johnson & Johnson Ltd., amounts to manufacture resulting in a new product falling classification under CETA subheading 5601.22.According to the appellants the process carried out by them do not amounts to manufacture.2. We have heard both sides. We find that M/s. Johnson & Johnson purchased acrylic knitted fabric from their manufacturer, who has classified them, under CETA sub-heading 6002.20 and supplied them to the appellants, who washed them with Excel brand detergent, dried and folded them to the required size and packed them in a plastic bag with a monogram "Stay Free Washable Cover" as well as the "Sanitary Napkin Cover".3. According to the department, the product became ready for specific use for ladies only after the process carried out by the appella...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »