Mumbai Court June 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.
M/S. S.C.i.L. (India) Ltd. Vs. Indian Bank and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom131; 1991(4)BomCR108
ORDER1. By this notice of motion, the plaintiff seeks to restrain defendant No. 1 Bank from paying the amount covered underBank guarantee dated 23rd May 1987 to defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 2 from encashing the said Bank guarantee.2. I must state at the outset that no case is made out by the plaintiff for grant of interim injunct ion and the notice of motion is liable to fail for the reasons indicated below.3. The plaintiff-company has its registered office at Calcutta in the State of West Bengal. The plaintiff-company also has its office at Nirlon House, Bombay. By a contract bearing No.NPIL/ECP/85/9/782 dated 31st March 1987, the defendant No. 2 engaged the plaintiff as sub-contractor for carrying out erection, testing and commissioning of L.P. Pipe work and tube Oil unloading system at Rihand Super Thermal Power Station Stage I, at a total value of Rs. 1,07,28,060/-. At the instance of the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1-Bank furnished a bank guarantee, in the sum of Rupees 10,7...
S.C.i.L. (India) Ltd. Vs. Indian Bank and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1991
Reported in: [1994]79CompCas693(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka J.1. By this notice of motion, the plaintiff seeks to restrain defendant No. 1 bank from paying the amount covered under the bank guarantee dated May 23, 1987, to defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 2 from encashing the said bank guarantee. 2. I must state at the outset that no case is made out by the plaintiff for grant of interim injunction and the notice of motion is liable to fail for the reasons indicated below. 3. The plaintiff-company has its registered office at Calcutta in the State of West Bengal. The plaintiff-company also has its office at Nirlon House, Bombay. By a contract bearing No. NPIL/ECP/85/9/782, dated March 31, 1987, defendant No. 2 engaged the plaintiff as sub-contractor for carrying out erection, testing and commissioning of L.P. pipe work and tube oil unloading system at Rihand Super Thermal Power Station Stage I, at a total value of Rs. 1,07,28,060. At the instance of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1-bank furnished a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 1...
Yogesh Babulal Shah Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1991
Reported in: 1992LC34(Bombay); 1992(57)ELT41(Bom)
Pendse, J. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Shri Vyas waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard counsel. 1. The short question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the Cloves which are imported by the petitioner fall within Item 169 in List 8 of Appendix 6 of Import & Export Policy April 1990 - March 1993. Item 169 reads as follows : '169. Drugs/Drug intermediates not elsewhere specified.' It is not necessary to set out the facts in great detail as the fact of import under the licence dated December 5, 1990 is not in dispute. 2. The petitioner has secured licence dated December 5, 1990 by transfer. The licence enables the actual users to import goods as per Paras 220(2) and 220(1) of Policy of AM 1990-93 of Policy Book subject to conditions stipulated in Paras 220 13 1D. In pursuance of this import licence the petitioner imported cloves and filed Bill of Entry on March 11, 1991. The petitioner complains that ...
Madhu Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. East India Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR62
A.A. Cazi, J.1. The petitioners seek to set aside Award No. 61 of 1990. For this purpose, it is urged : (i) that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties and (ii) that this was a ready delivery contract which means that the delivery must be made within 11 days and there cannot be any extension and if there is an extension then it is illegal and, therefore, an arbitration in respect of any illegal agreement would itself be null and void.2. It is undisputed that there was an agreement dated 16th November 1983 between the petitioners and the respondents. That agreement begins with the words: 'He confirm having SOLD to you subject to the Bye-Laws of East India Cotton Association Ltd., Bombay, as under : ...............'The signature portion on behalf of the respondents reads :'For East India CompanySd/-Partner.'There appears to be a signature of the partner at the place for the signature. The signature portion on behalf of the petitioners read's :'For Madhu Spg. & Wvg. Mills ...
Virendrakumar J. Handa Vs. Dilawarkhan Alij Khan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR218; 1992CriLJ2476; 1991(2)MhLj1371
ORDER1. By this writ petition invoking the powers of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and its inherent powers saved u/S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, by which he reversed the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, directing that two motor cycles and one jeep. Which are the subject matters of the present petition, be handed over to the Petitioner on his executing a Bond in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on usual terms. 2. The petitioner is the original complainant in C.R. No. 597 of 1985 which was registered with Dadasaheb Bhadkamkar Marg Police Station u/S. 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the Petitioner prayed for setting aside the whole order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, pertaining to the custody of one Honda motor cycle, one Yamaha motor cycles and one jeep, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. C...
M.J. Exports Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1991
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT112Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order in original bearing No.KCH/Collr/10/90 dated 22-10-1990, holding the appellants' goods (life saving equipment - Homodialysing machines with spare parts), which were offered for export under S/Bs dated 2-12-1988 as liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. Since the goods were allowed export provisionally, on execution of bond by the appellants covering the full value of the export goods, with a cash deposit of Rs. 6 lakhs and Bank Guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs, the Collector in the adjudication order, imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs (goods having been already released provisionally and not being available for confiscation) and directed appropriation of the cash deposit, enforcement of bank guarantee and also directed the appellant to pay up the balance of Rs. 34 lakhs. The present appeal is against the aforesaid order.2. After hearing the elaborate arguments of Shri Habbu the learned advocate for the appellants and Sh...
Prataprai Trumbaklal Mehta Vs. Jayant Nemchand Shah and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom149; 1991(4)BomCR89
1. This chamber summons is taken out by the defendants -- judgment-debtors -- for an order of recording 'adjustment' and satisfaction of decree dated 21st September 1987 passed by this Court in this suit in terms of alleged agreement dated 21st April 1990 propounded by the defendants, copy whereof is annexed as Exhibit '3' to the affidavit of defendant No. 1 dated 15th May 1990 made in support of this chamber summons. This chamber summons raises interesting questions of law relating to interpretation and application of O. 21, R. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the role of a notary in attesting copy of a document as certified copy. The plaintiff has alleged that the alleged agreement propounded by the defendants is a forged document and it was never executed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff decree-holder is a practising advocate. The defendant No. 1 is a builder. Oral evidence led in this case consists of the evidence of defendant No. 1, the plaintiff and one Mr. Sonavane, Advocate-...
The Chief Officer, Sangli Municipal Council Vs. Shri Daramsing Hiralal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR114; [1991(63)FLR324]; (1994)IIILLJ720Bom; 1991(1)MhLj981
H.H. Kantharia, J. 1. The respondent-workman was appointed as a Bill Clerk in the Public Works Department of the Sangli Municipal Council in a vacant post with effect from June 1, 1979. He was given appointment orders every month and thus continued in the employment till August 1, 1980. Thereafter he was again appointed for one month up to August 31, 1980 and then' no orders of appointment were issued in his favour. Instead, an order appointing one K.G.Londhe with effect from September 1, 1980 was passed. According to the respondent-workman, since he had continuously worked for a period of fifteen months in the Public Works Department of the Sangli Municipal Council he was entitled to be made permanent as a Bill Clerk and was further entitled to be continued in the services even after August 31, 1980 by virtue of the provisions of the Award made in Reference (IT) No. 102 of 1955. His grievance was that by failing to implement the provisions of the said Award and not making him permanen...
State Bank of India Vs. Arora Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR343
H. Suresh, J.1. This is an application on the part of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, to grant leave to the applicants under the provision of Order 21, Rule 52 of the Civil Procedure Code to attach immovable and movable properties of the first defendant-company as shown in Schedule L, M, N & C to the plaint, with a view to recover arrears of sales tax from the first defendant-company.2. There is a prayer that the applicants be added as parties to the above suit and there is a further prayer that the Court Receiver be directed to sell the properties in his possession, with the notice of the said auction sale to the applicants herein.3. As far as the application on the part of the applicants to be joined as party to the suit, is concerned, I must say that the same is not maintainable. The sales Tax department has nothing to do with the issues involved in the suit. However, as far as the other prayer for leave to the applicants under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 52 of the Civil Procedu...
Vidarbha Paper Mills Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1991
Reported in: (1992)(91)LC45Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order in appeal bearing No.PPM11609/NG-15/88 dated 10.8.1988, rejecting the appeal of the appellants.2. The undisputed factual position is that certain demands were raised on RT-12 returns pointing out short levy, which were not paid by the appellants. The Asstt. Collector, without issuing a show cause notice for confirming the demands, extended personal hearing to the appellants and passed an order dated 17.9.1986 to the effect as below: I have no hesitation to say that for reasons set out by the Hon'ble Nagpur High Court in their judgment dated 20.1.1986 on this assessee's W.P. No. 2250 of 1983, the amounts indicated as short payments; on various RT 12's from time to time are payable by the assessee. The assessee should forthwith pay the same.3. Against this order, the appellants went in appeal before the Collector (Appeals), who has dismissed their appeal stating that the RT-12 assessment is also an order and on that order no appeal has bee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »