Mumbai Court May 2005 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.
Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. and Wvg. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT217Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides for sometime, we dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit and proceed to decide the main appeal. The Issue in this appeal is whether a composite mill manufacturing fabrics as in the case of the appellants can avail of lower rate of duty under Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 in view of the fact that captively consumed yarn and base fabric do not pay any duty under Notification No. 22/1996-C.E., dated 23-7-1996. The issue involves interpretation of the conditions under Notification, which require payment of appropriate duty of Excise on the raw materials.The Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai a few days earlier on 29-4-2005 in the light of the clarification issued under C.B.E.& C. Circular No. 680/71 /2002-CX., dated 10-12-2002 and in the context of explanation to the said notification. We have come to the conclusion that the fabrics manufactured by a composite textiles mill from textile fiber purchased from the market are eligible to...
United Western Bank Ltd. Vs. Jadhav Shoe Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC132
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant The United Western Bank Ltd., Sangli Branch being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.6.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune in Original Application No. 91/2002. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer, though directed the issuance of recovery certificate in terms of the compromise pursis filed by the parties, he gave declaration that the mortgage evidenced in memorandum dated 24.7.1997 in respect of plot Nos. 109, 110 and 111 Vasantdada Industrial Estate, Sangli was non-est and hence, unenforceable. The appellant Bank is aggrieved by this latter portion of the order and hence, the appeal to that limited extent. The appellant Bank filed application for recovery against the defendant Nos. 1 to 6. The defendants appeared and contested the claim and thereafter, compromise was entered into between the appellant Bank and the defendant Nos. 1 to 6. They filed a compromise...
Deshmukh and Co. (Publishers) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Avinash Vishnu Khandekar a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR33; 2006(2)BomCR321; 2005(3)MhLj387; 2006(32)PTC358(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the Court below in the suit claming copyright in the Literary work of late Shri V.S. Khandekar is the appellant herein. The substantive First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-2-2001 in Civil Suit No. 2 of 1998 passed by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Pune, whereby the suit filed by the appellant came to be dismissed, whereas Appeal from Order is against the order dated 20-2-2002 passed below Ex.5 in Copyright Suit No. 2 of 2002 by the Vth Additional District Judge, Pune, whereby interim injunction came to be refused.The parties are same, issues involved are identical, facts are common, so a single judgment will dispose of both appeals. Hereinafter parties will be referred to as arrayed in the original suits. The Factual Matrix :1. The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeals in nutshell can be summarised as under :2. M/s Deshmukh and Company Publishers (P) Ltd. Pune, a leading publisher of bo...
Dhansingh Gopal Chauhan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj500
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both the petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Having heard at length the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned APP on behalf of the respondents, rule in both the petitions, and by consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. Perused the records.3. In both the petitions, the orders dated 21st August, 2004 purportedly issued in exercise of powers under Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, hereinafter called as the 'said Act', are sought to be challenged on the ground that the same are beyond the scope of the provision of law comprised under Section 18 of the said Act and, therefore, beyond the powers conferred upon the authority who has passed those orders as well as that the orders apparently disclose non-application of mind by the said authority while issuing the said orders.4. Though the petitions relate to the two dif...
The Akola Oil Industries (Under Liquidation) Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR706; [2006]66SCL147(Bom)
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Board of Industrial and Financial Restructuring recommended winding up of Akola Oil Mills & accordingly on 8/6/2001 present Company petition No. 5 of 2001 Akola Oil Mills Ltd came to be filed & it is already admitted by this court on 24th August 2001. On 6/6/2003 Official Liquidator came to be appointed as provisional Liquidator for it. The Official Liquidator states that in pursuance of this appointment, he has taken over possession of all properties and assets of the company at Akola which consist of land, Building, plant and machinery stores, vehicles, furniture and fixtures on 11/6/2003. So far as properties located at Mumbai, Poona and Nashik are concerned, possession thereof is taken by Official Liquidator between 22/7/2003 to 24/7/2003. He states that thereafter two valuers were appointed and their report in relation to valuation of above properties is also received. On 17/10/2003. This court directed its office to renew fixed deposit receipt (FDR) which...
Shamrao Vishnu Kunjir Vs. Suresh Vishnu Kunjir and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Bom294; 2005(3)ALLMR622; 2005(4)BomCR544; 2005(3)MhLj1071
Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. Though the respondent Nos. 2 to 13 are parties, the order arises out. of the say filed by defendant No. 1 i.e. respondent No. 1 who is represented before this Court. Notice on the other Respondents, therefore, dispensed with.3. The petitioner, is the original plaintiff in the pending suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 166 of 2001 filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior. Division, Saswad. The reliefs sought for is that as the properties are ancestral and/or purchased out of the nucleus of the joint family properties that are liable to be partitioned. The respondent No. 1 filed written statement-cum-reply to the application for temporary injunction on 8th November, 2004 wherein defence is set out. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have adopted the written statement filed by the respondent No. 1. There are some inter se disputes as to the procedure of filing written statement between respondent Nos. 2 and 4 on the one hand and respo...
A.V. Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(102)ECC177; 2005(187)ELT9(Bom); 2005(3)MhLj821
V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is challenging the letter dated 13/16th September, 1993 at Exhibit 'H', whereby it was clarified that as per the sensitive List at Sr. No. 2 Import of Rubber Chemicals CIF value had been restricted upto 7% of FOB value of Exports. Accordingly, value of the licence held by the petitioner may be treated as restricted to 7% of FOB value. The petitioner is also challenging the show cause notice dated 18th October, 1993 at Exhibit 'G'; whereby, the petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why the demand set up against them for short levy to the extent of 13,46,096/- should not be confirmed and why action for recovery thereof should not be initiated under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.Factual matrix :2. Factual matrix giving rise to the present petition in nutshell appears to be as under :3. The petitioner is fully export oriented unit. It manufactures various types of automobile rubber parts, which are fully exported. The petitioner, as per th...
Rabindranath Martins De Barros and ors. Vs. Town and Country Planning ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR197
Lavande A.P., J.1. Rule Mr. Joshi, learned Government Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent heard forthwith.2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 25th May, 2004 passed by the respondent No. 2, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 45(1) of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the appeal has been disposed of by a one line order without giving any reasons and on that ground the impugned order deserves to be set aside. It is by now well-settled that any order passed by a Court or a quasi judicial authority must give reasons. Mr. Joshi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, has fairly not disputed this position.4. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25th May, 2004, passed by the respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 2 is directed to dispose of the ap...
Sinero Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR171; [2005(106)FLR606]; (2005)IIILLJ586Bom
Lavande A.P., J.1. Rule. Ms. Coutinho, waives notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent heard forthwith.2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 30th December, 2004, passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the review application filed by the petitioners under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, read with paragraph 79-A of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.3. Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 11th October, 2004, the petitioners filed an application seeking review of the order dated 27th August, 2004 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the last date for filing review was 11th October, 2004 considering that the order was passed on 27th August, 2004. According to the learned Counsel the review application which was filed on 11th October, 2004 was in time. Therefore, respondent No. 2 could not have dismissed the review application on the ground that the same was barred by limitat...
Kedarnath S/O Gangadhar Agrawal Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MhLj833
A.H. Joshi, J.1. At the outset, Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate for the applicant states that he does not press for prayer Clause (a) and shall argue the application only as far as the prayer Clause (b) and consequential reliefs are concerned.2. The applicant herein filed the complaint to the Police on 5-9-2002 under sections 467, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence complained of pertains to creation of forged and fabricated Will. Police registered the non-cognizable offence and applied to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola requesting for permission to investigate the offences. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola passed an order on 10-10-2002 to the effect that:-'In view of the reasons permission granted under Section 155(2) of Criminal Procedure Code dt. 10-10-2002.'3. This order was challenged by the present non-applicant No. 2 by filing a Criminal Revision Application which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 235 of 2002. The present applicant was not ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »