Mumbai Court August 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.
Lloyds Steel Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT159Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In both these appeals, the issue involved is the same i.e levy of Anti-Dumping Duty on Graphite Electrodes imported by the same importer.The notifications concerned are no. 77/97 and 20/98 issued in this regard.2. The lower authorities having found that the invoice of the goods is by a person mentioned in column 4 of the Table to above mentioned notifications and they are situated in Germany the L.C was opened and the export proceeds have been remitted to Germany and this shipment therefore should be considered as having been exported from Germany or and originated in Germany to meet the requirements of columns 2 and 3 of the said notifications and that would call for imposition of Anti Dumping Duty.3. The Ld. Advocate for the importers has taken us through the documents placed in the paper book which clearly evidence that the country of origin certificates issued by the competent authority in Poland, the invoice issued by the supplier in Germany mentioned and recognized the goods ...
Mr. Sunil Parmeshwar Mittal S/O. Parmeshwar Mittal Vs. Deputy Commissi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR778; 2005(188)ELT268(Bom); 2005(4)MhLj837
V.C. Daga, J.1. Petitioners by these petitions are 2 challenging demand notices dated 1st October, 2003 issued by the respondent No. 1 calling upon them to pay within seven days a sum of Rs. 28,21,710/- payable by the company M/s. Goldseal Telecommunication Ltd., Gurgoan (M/s. GTL' for short) since they happened to be the directors of the company in the past. The parties are different but the issue involved is common so a single Judgment will dispose of both the petitions. Brief narration of facts will be useful for correct appreciation of the rival contentions. FACTUAL MATRIX2. The factual matrix of both the petitions is in narrow compass Mr. S.P. Mittal, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7015 of 2003 became director of M/s. GTL on 21/2/1997. He resigned on 31/3/1998; whereas Mr. K.T. Shah, petitioner in another Writ Petition bearing No. 7024 of 2003 became director of the said M/s. GTL on 27/7/1989 and ceased to be its director on 19/8/1991 since his directorship was not confirmed and ...
JaIn Irrigation Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR837; 2005(189)ELT277(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. By this application filed under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962, the applicant seeks an order directing the CEGAT to refer to this Court as many as six questions of law arising out of the order of the CEGAT dated October 12, 1999.2. The basic question raised in this application is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CEGAT was justified in upholding the Order in Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and declining the request of the applicant to reconvert the already assessed home consumption bill of entry into bond bill of entry under Section 46(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Sometime in November, 1995 the applicant a 100% export oriented unit (EOU) had imported a consignment of Pipe Head PHPO 40 (hereinafter referred to as 'the imported goods') under Customs Tariff Head 8477.90 as machine part for the production of HDPE and MDPE Pipes and filed a bond bill of entry, claiming that the said capital goods have been imported...
Shri Balshiram Khandu Pawale and Shri Baban Khandu Pawale Vs. Special ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR474; (2005)107BOMLR102
V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this Petition, petitioners are challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by issuing Notification under Section 4 dated 24/09/1997 and declaration dated 02/06/1998 issued under Sections 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the award dated 31/03/2000 which was passed pursuant to the said declaration dated 02/06/1998. Petitioners are also challenging the order passed by the respondent No. 3 - Divisional Commissioner, Revenue Division, Pune dated 14/08/2002 on the representation made by the petitioners in respect of the land which was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Petitioners are challenging the aforesaid Notification and the decision passed by the respondent No. 3, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Brief facts are as under:-3. Respondent No. 1 - Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 22 issued Notification under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Re...
Sidhappa Gurupadappa Bijargi Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR154; 2006(3)BomCR426; 2006(1)MhLj288
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. 2. By the present Petition, the petitioner seeks the relief in the nature of setting aside of the land acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the Notification dated 27/01/1998 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and further for quashing notice dated 09/04/1998 issued under Section 9 of the said Act. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents should not have proceeded to issue notice dated 09/04/1998 under Section 9 of the said Act without complying with the provisions of Section 6 of the said Act. It is the case of the petitioner that after issuance of the notification under Section 4 on 27/01/1998, the respondents did not issue any declaration under Section 6 of the said Act and, consequently, there was no occasion for the respondents to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings and to issue notice under Section 9 on 09/04/1998. The respondents having proceeded to issue notice under Section 9 without com...
RafiuddIn NuruddIn Musalman Vs. Abduyl Karim Abdul Reheman and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR687; 2005(4)MhLj646
A.B. Naik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner original defendant No. 2 has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Dhule on 16-1-1984 allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Dhule, on 31-12-1981, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. The present respondent is original plaintiff. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as the plaintiff and defendant respectively. Respondent No. 2 herein was original defendant who died during pendency of the proceedings and his two heirs were brought on record. In order to understand the controversy/point raised in this petition, the facts which are borne by the record are required to be stated.2. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Dhule, for possession of house CTS No. 4373-B, situate at Dhule proper (hereinafter referred to as suit house). It is contended by the plaintiff th...
Premnarayan Dharamnarayan Tiwari Vs. Sub-area Manager, Western Coalfie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MhLj598
D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Ms. Kalayani Deshpande, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Badar, learned counsel, for the respondents. 2. This petition is directed against the order of dismissal dated 10-7-1990 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the above referred order is challenged basically on two grounds- firstly that the petitioner's request to be represented by defence representative Shri P.L. Sen, senior oversea of Umrer Colliery was rejected by the Inquiry Officer, though under Standing Orders such permission ought to have been granted to him. It is, therefore, contended that the enquiry conducted stands vitiated since the petitioner could not put forth his defence properly for want of permission to be represented by the co-worker. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the order of the Disciplinary Authority is bad in law since the copy of the inquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner before pas...
Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Limited and anr. Vs. Regional Lab ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR351; [2006(108)FLR972]; (2006)IILLJ357Bom; 2006(1)MhLj615
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. As the issue involved in all these three writ petitions is identical, writ petitions are taken together for final hearing.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.3. Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the challenge involved in these writ petitions is limited. He contends that the petitioners never disputed their liability to pay minimum wages to the employees. The Notification, revising the minimum wages, issued on 19-3-1991 was actually received by the petitioners on 8-7-1991 and as during that period the rainy season was on, the activities of petitioners were at its lower ebb and hence the difference in amount of minimum wages could not be paid immediately. He states that said difference in minimum wages have been actually paid on 31-10-1991 and the application under Section 20 sub-section (1) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, was moved by respondent No. 2 before respondent No. 1 on 31-12-1991. He contends that as the ap...
Metal Reclying Ind. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(194)ELT280(Bom)
ORDER1. Heard rival parties.2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.3. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Settlement Commission dated July 22, 2005 remitting the proceedings back to the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat I for decision in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 32L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with sub section (1) of Section 127I of the Customs Act, 1962 with direction to dispose it in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Acts as if no application under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act or Section 127B of the Customs Act had been made.4. Having heard both the parties, we are of the considered view that non engagement of counsel resulting in three adjournments alone was not sufficient to reach to the conclusion that the applicant was non co-operative. The view taken on the slender ground mentioned is unsustainable. Even otherwise, considering the consensus between the parties and ...
Laxman Lahanuji Lende and ors. Vs. Harichand Domaji Kulharkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR656; 2006(3)BomCR864
Karnik D.G., J. 1. Appellants are the legal heirs of the original defendant. Respondent is the original plaintiff. For the sake of convenience the appellants are hereinafter referred to as defendant, and the respondent is referred to as the plaintiff. 2. The defendant is the owner of the property bearing field Survey No. 18/2 situated at village Parsoda (for short the suit property). On 10th March, 1976 the defendant entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1500/- by accepting Rs. 400/- as an earnest. According to the plaintiff the defendant put the plaintiff in possession to the suit property in part performance of the agreement of sale. The defendant, however, denied the execution of an agreement of sale and also denied having put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property. The question of possession however is not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. The defendant having refused to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »