Mumbai Court December 1991 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.
Bhalchandra Chintaman Gadgil Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom431; 1992(2)BomCR503; 1992(1)MhLj171
ORDERTipnis, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by a retired Judge of this Court seeking directions to the respondents to pay interest at 18 per cent on delayed payment of cash equivalent of leave salary. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India, respondent No. 2 is the State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 3 is the Accountant General Maharashtra-1, Bombay, and respondents No. 4 and 5 are the Prothonotary & Senior Master and Registrar, respectively, of this Court.2. The petitioner retired as a Judge of this Court on 2nd November, 1985. On the date of retirement, he had to his credit leave with full allowances -- 4 months and one day (121 days) and leave with half allowance -- 2 years, 2 months and one day. According to the petitioner, under rule 20B of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955, he was entitled to cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of the period of earned leave at his credit on the date of his retirement, subject to a maximu...
Manoj Wasudeo Ingley and Others Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1991
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR673; 1992CriLJ1970
Dhabe, J.1. These two appeals which arise out of the same judgment in Sessions Case No. 703 of 90 can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. Cr. Appeal No. 237 of 91 is preferred by the original accused Nos. 1 to 3 while Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 91 is preferred by the original accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6. All the accused Nos. 1 to 6 are convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable u/Ss. 147, 148 and 302 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC). 2. Briefly the prosecution case is that the original accused Nos. 1 to 3 viz. Manoj, Milind and Mangesh are real brothers and the accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are their friends. The name of the deceased is Raju alias Rajendra Marotrao Yawalkar, resident of Onkar Nagar, Nagpur. According to the prosecution case, the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 reside in front of the house of the deceased Raju. The house of the accused No. 4 is to the rear side of the house of the deceased Raju. The accused Nos. 5 and...
Sunder P. Lalvani, Managing Partner of M/S. Lalwani Brothers Vs. State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2015
1. This is an application filed by the original accused in Criminal Appeal No. 415 of 1983. This Court, by a final Judgment and Order dated 26-8-1991, allowed the Criminal Appeal which had been filed by the State of Maharashtra. That appeal was directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay, on 3-5-1983. The accused, who is a businessman, was charged with having committed an offence punishable under S. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, essentially in so far as having obtained an import licence valued at Rs. 47,84,761/- had imported items on the basis that they were for his actual use and that the same had been sold in the open market. The appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the order of acquittal was admitted by this Court and notice in respect of the same was served on the Accused on 5-10-1983. The Accused, though a well-placed businessman, did not take any action ...
Nababkhan Abdullakhan and ors. Vs. Jamrubi W/O Abdullakhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR714
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. By this appeal, the original defendants challenge the decrees passed by the two Courts below against them, directing them to deliver possession of the suit room to the plaintiff.2. According to the plaintiff, she was the owner of the suit house and the defendants were her licensees who had not vacated the premises, in spite of a notice revoking the licence and she was, therefore, entitled to possession. This claim was resisted by the defendants who denied the plaintiffs title, set up an ownership in themselves and alternatively contended that certain amounts were to be sent to the plaintiff by the defendants for her maintenance, and they were not to be evicted from the house.3. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was the owner of the house in question, that the defendants were not the owners, that the defendants were allowed to live in the house as licensees and the plaintiff was entitled to possession, In appeal by the defendants against the decree for evictio...
West Coast Engineering Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT400Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order in appeal bearing No.KVV-600/90.B.III, dated 10-10-1990, rejecting the appellants' appeal. The appellants were availing of modvat credit in respect of steel flats used in the manufacture of steel gratings. They were regularly getting flats from M/s. Bansal Steel Rolling Mills. However, due to non-availability of flats of the required specifications, they purchased steel ingots and supplied to M/s. Bansal Steel Rolling Mills reportedly under Rule 57F(2), on account of which, flats manufactured by M/s. Bansal Steel Rolling Mills were removed without payment of duty. Hence, at the time of receipt of the flats, credit was not taken because they have been received without payment of duty. Subsequently, an objection was raised by the officer having jurisdiction over M/s. Bansal Steel Rolling Mills stating that the appellants have not taken the permission under Rule 57F(2) for sending the steel ingots to M/s. Bansal Steel Rolling Mills and henc...
Gabriel India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: (1993)(67)ELT131Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. GSM-2386/89-BIII dated 6-12-1989 rejected the appellants' appeal. The facts involved can be identified as below : The appellants received certain inputs from one M/s. Neha Engineering (P) Ltd. which is a small scale unit. The inputs were received by the appellants during the period from 1-3-1986 to 13-3-1986, during which period M/s. Neha Engineering (P) Ltd. were not granted Gate-Passes and, hence, they had paid duty involved on the invoices issued for removal by way of deposit of the duty amount under TR 6 Challans. They have also obtained a certificate from the Range Supdt. certifying that M/s. Neha Engineering had paid basic excise duty for the clearance made during the period from 1-3-1986 to 13-3-1986, during which period Gate Passes were not granted. The certificate also mentioned the invoice numbers and the duty amount involved in each of the invoice and also the payment of duty cover...
The Industrial Development Bank of India Vs. Nira Pulp and Paper Mills ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom365; 1992(1)BomCR693; [1994]79CompCas811(Bom)
ORDER1. In the suit filed by the plaintiffs-to recover from defendants 1, 2 and 3 the sum of Rs. 12,90,56,879/- with interest due thereon and for enforcement and sale of mortgaged and hypothecated securities and for other reliefs, as mentioned in the plaint, the defendants 1, 2 and 3 have taken-out the present Notice of Motion for discharge of the Receiver appointed by this Court on 13th February, 1990 and in alternative for directions to the Receiver to hand back to the 1st defendants the possession of the 1st defendants' factory premises taken on 12th August, 1991. It is also prayed that the sum of Rs. 20 lakhs deposited by the 2nd defendant and lying in this Court should not be disbursed but should be utilised in such manner as may be directed by BIFR for rehabilitation of the 1st defendants.2. Since according to the plaintiffs the 1st defendants have been in tremendous financial difficulties their net worth having become negative, their liabilities being far in excess of the real a...
National Textile Corpn. (South Mah.) Ltd. Vs. Ashok Shridhar Athavale ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR363; (1991)93BOMLR708; (1992)IILLJ403Bom; 1992(1)MhLj310
Smt. Sujata Manohar J.1. The 1st respondent is an employee of the retail shop of Finlay Mills Limited. The shop was run by the Finlay Mills Limited upto October 1983, and thereafter it is run by National Textile Corporation who are the appellants before us. The Presiding Officer, 7th Labour Court, Bombay, by his order dated December 22, 1988, held that the 1st respondent who was the employee of Finlay Mills retail cloth shop was not governed by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and the relevant Notification thereunder because, conducting of a retail cloth shop was not an integral part of the running of a Spinning and Weaving Mill. This decision was challenged by the 1st Respondent in Writ Petition 899 of 1989. A learned single judge of this court has, by his judgment which is impugned before us, come to the conclusion that the 1st respondent is governed by the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and the relevant Notification. In the present appeal the judgment o...
Vithaldas Rama Lotlikar Vs. Jose Menino Godinho and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR254
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, S.D., Margao, dated 25th June, 1991 in Civil Misc. Applications No. 381/88/B, 398/88/B,399/88 and 65/90/B, attached to Special Civil Suit No. 205/88/B and Civil Misc. Application No. 4690/B attached to Special Civil Suit No. 32/90/B whereby he dismissed, among others, the appellant's Application No. 381/88/ seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering in the suit property 'Dubaxalem' situated at Calata.2. The appellant had filed a suit against the respondents alleging that he is the owner in possession of the suit property consequent upon its purchase by deed of Sale dated 8. 4. 1988. The property was belonging originally to the late Manual Agostinho Godinho and after his death it devolved on his four children, namely Rumaldino, Belezinha, Clementina and Jose Gulalberto. It is an admitted position that, on the death of his two sisters and brother Jose Gulalberto, Rumaldino became the ex...
ic-32704 X Major K.L. Menhdiratta Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR320
A.A. Desai, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution questions the legality, propriety and bona fides of Order cashiering the petitioner, passed on 9-6-1988, by the General Court Martial, constituted under section 109, which has subsequently been confirmed by order dated 12th June, 1989, in pursuance of the provisions under section 164, of the Army Act.2. The petitioner in 1971 entered the Defence Services as a Commissioned Officer. In 1983, he attained the rank of a Major and was posted at Panaji. The respondent No. 11 Lt. Col. Chug was the Commanding Officer. The complainant Major Sushil Kumar on 21-6-1985 was holding the charge of Accounts Officer. His complaint was that on that day at about 9.45 a.m. The petitioner entered in his chamber to collect some official cheques. There was an exchange of hot words between them. The petitioner then lifted the telephone instrument and gave a blow on the head of complainant, resulting in an injury with profuse bleeding.In view ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »