Mumbai Court June 1992 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.
Chandrakant D. Volvoikar and ors. Vs. Sadiq Sheikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1992
Reported in: II(1994)ACC367
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. This judgment will conveniently dispose of both the appeals filed against the award of the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji, dated 30th September, 1987 in Claim Petition No. 99 of 1983. First Appeal No. 170 of 1987 was filed by respondent No. 5 in First Appeal No. 6 of 1988 one Sadiq Sheikh owner of M/s. Shaukat AH Glass Traders, Panaji while First Appeal No. 6 of 1988 was filed by respondent No. 5 in First Appeal No. 170 of 1987 M/s. Vishnu Kamat Tarkar. The claim petition had been instituted by the applicant one Chandrakant D. Volvoikar against respondent No. 1 M/s. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd., who was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, respondent No. 2 one Vasant Kutty who was actually driving the vehicle which met with an accident, respondent No. 3 which is the Insurance Company of the vehicle, respondent No. 4 M/s. Vishnu Kamat Tarkar which is a firm dealing with repairs of vehicles having a garage for that purpose and...
Union of India Vs. Sheel thermoplastics Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1992
Reported in: 1993LC277(Bombay); 1992(62)ELT33(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by Union of India against judgment dated April 15, 1988 delivered by learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1795 of 1986. By the impugned judgment the learned Judge set aside the order dated March 20, 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and also the notice issued on July 14, 1986 in pursuance of that order. The learned Judge held that the Item manufactured by the respondent Company was liable to be classified under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Act and the Company was entitled to the exemption from payment of excise duty in accordance with exemption Notification No. 182/82. The learned Judge further directed the appellants to finalise the refund claim filed by the Company within period of eight weeks and then refund the amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The facts giving rise to passing of the impugned order are as follows.2. Respondent No. 1 Company was incorporated as a Private Limited C...
ignatius Lobo Vs. Antoinette Rodrigues
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR574
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. Admit.Respondent waives service.By consent appeal called out for hearing and final disposal.2. The present appeal is filed by the original plaintiff seeking to impugn the order, dated 3rd June, 1992 passed by His Honour Judge Shri A.V. Nirgude (in vacation) of the Bombay City Civil Court refusing ad interim injunction restraining the respondent-defendant who happens to be the wife of the appellant-plaintiff from interfering with his right to enter and continue in occupation of the suit flat. The flat in question which is a rented premises, prior to the marriage stood in the name of the mother of the defendant. After marriage it was transferred in the name of the plaintiff. It continued to be in his name till about 1989. In 1989 by consent of the parties the flat was transferred in the name of the defendant.3. The defendant filed M.J. Petition No. 1596 of 1990 and obtained an ex parte order of judicial separation. It is common ground that at that stage the plaintiff ...
Jayram Karsan Tank Vs. Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-1992
Reported in: II(1992)ACC587
B.U. Wahane, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Employees' Insurance Court at Nagpur dated 16th December, 1981 in Insurance Case No. 3 of 1980, alleging that the learned trial Court wholly M/s conceived the law while deciding the application filed by the appellant/applicant under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.2. The appellant/applicant filed an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging Order No. INS/II/(3)/23/1498/91 'SFV80-3019, dated 21st/22nd May, 1980, covering the period from December, 1977 to March, 1980 and directing to deposit Rs. 6,405/- and Order No. 23-1498-91-'SF'5075 dated 28th July, 1978 directing to pay Rs. 314.70 as bad and illegal and to quash the same and further to stop the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur.3. According to the appellant M/s Jayram Karsan Ta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›