Mumbai Court January 1995 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.
Sadiq A. Futehally and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: (1995)(57)LC302Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals have been filed against the order dated 11.5.1990 passed by the Collector of Customs, Nhava Sheva, Bombay. The facts briefly are that M/s Ashiya Motors, a proprietory concern owned by appellant Sadiq A. Futehally was appointed as distributors of Audi Cars manufactured by M/s Volkswagen A.G., West Germany from 1987 for Bombay and Maharashtra. As per agreement, they were to promote the sale of cars, supply price list and other information to the buyers, set up a workshop to provide service facilities and carry out pre-delivery inspection. For these services, they were to be paid a commission of 3% which was in the nature of overriding commission. A number of motor vehicles were imported under this agreement. The appellant Shri H.C.Fernandes along with other importers Shri Ashwin Shah and Mukesh Agarwal imported one Audi car each at the Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Nhava Sheva and filed Bills of Entry for their clearance. Meanwhile, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence purs...
Balasaheb S/O. Sahebrao Jadhav Vs. Hanumant S/O. Bhaurao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR61; (1995)97BOMLR192
A.D. Mane, J.1. On 21-6-1993 the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale of the land. The petitioner-plaintiff has averred that the defendant under the agreement of sale dated 25-2-1990 agreed to sell the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 48,000. That agreement of sale has been reduced to writing on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/-. The plaintiff produced the said document alongwith the plaint. The learned trial Judge, however, on perusing the document purported to be agreement of sale suo motu raised an objection that in view of Explanation to Article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act the plaintiff was required to pay deficit stamp with penalty of 10% thereon. This civil revision application is, therefore, directed against the said order passed on 13-10-1993 by the learned trial Judge.2. It may be stated that the learned trial Judge has totally misread the provision of Article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. Article 25 applies only in a case where property is...
Jeevraj Munshi Shah Vs. the Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR63; (1995)97BOMLR140
A.P. Shah, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated June 17, 1993 passed by the District Judge, Thane, confirming a judgment and decree of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, dismissing the plaintiff's suit solely on the ground that it was barred by the provision of res judicata under section 11 of the C.P.C.2. The facts leading up to the suit, out of which this Appeal arises have been related in the judgment delivered by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. No useful purpose will be served by repeating them. Suffice it to say that before filing the present suit, the plaintiff had filed Suit No. 23 of 1977 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, raising similar issues and claiming almost identical reliefs. The learned Judge, who tried the said suit, held that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under section 80 of the C.P.C. The learned Judge, however, though holding that the suit did not lie, purported to d...
Jayashri V. Khalate and ors. Vs. Bhagivatlal Attarchand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: 2(1997)ACC139
N.D. Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original claimants challenging the judgment of Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune, dated 4.12.1984 whereby the Tribunal had dismissed the claim of the appellants.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follow:The accident took place on 27.11.1978 on Malegaon-Baramati Road in Baramati Tehsil of District Pune at about 7.15 in the evening. One Vijayasinghrao Shripat Khalate, the deceased, was riding his motor cycle bearing No. MHJ 428 from west towards east. The original opponents were travelling in an Ambassador motor car bearing registration No. MRA 8527 on the said road from east to west. The road at the accident spot has a total breadth of 23'6' and the middle portion has breadth of 17'6' and is of asphalt and is flanked by rough road of 3'in width. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained various injuries and he ultimately succumbed to his injuries on 18.12.1978. It was the applicant...
Deep Metal Industries Vs. Gaikwad B.D.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: II(1995)ACC694; 1996ACJ78; 1995(2)BomCR591; (1998)IIILLJ305Bom
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated February 20, 1987 in Application (WC) No. 13 of 1986 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, II Labour Court, Pune. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the sides.2. The respondent was a workman in the appellant company. He sustained an injury in an accident on August 11, 1985 while cleaning a machine. He preferred a claim petition before the Court below asking for compensation for the injury sustained during the course of employment. The same was resisted by the appellant by filing a written statement.After enquiry, the learned lower Court has held that the respondent is entitled to compensation and awarded total compensation of Rs. 41,506.87 ps. Being aggrieved by that order, the management has come up in appeal.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant raised the following three points in support of the appeal :1. That the petition was not maintainable for want of notice under Section...
Shri Joaquim Constantinho Carvalho Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR58; (1995)97BOMLR88
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. The appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No. 28/92 who was charge-sheeted in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, for offences punishable under sections 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant's case is that on 30th March, 1991, at about 1 p.m., the appellant kidnapped a minor girl by name Fernanda Quadros who was at that time 15 years of age and took her to Alnawar wherein he maintained intercourse with her. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge but the learned Sessions Judge after recording evidence acquitted the appellant of the offence under section 366-A but convicted him under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo 7 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to suffer three months further Simple Imprisonment. While convicting the accused the learned Assistant Sessions Judge recorded the finding that Miss Fernanda Quadros at the relevant time was a minor o...
Chandrakant Narsappa Manthalkar Vs. Awadibai Ambadas Shinde and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: (1995)97BOMLR463
M.L. Pendse, J.1. Balbhim was initially in private service at Bhivandi earning about Rs. 300/ to Rs. 350/- per month. Subsequently, Balbhim left Bhivandi and came down to Solapur and started working as a coolie near state transport bus stand on the main road at Panjarpol Chowk at Solapur. On December 26, 1982, at about 7.00 p.m. , Balbhim was standing on the road when motor truck bearing registration number 1134 came from the rear and dashed against Balbhim. Balbhim fell down and was crushed under the wheels of the truck and died on the spot. The incident was witnessed by Bharat Deokar who was working as a tonga driver and was standing at a distance of about 10ft. from deceased Balbhim. Bharat proceeded to the house of Balbhim and informed the widow and the mother of the death of Balbhim, Police were informed and a panchnama was drawn and statements of the witnesses were recorded,2. The widow, the minor son and the mother filed Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 17 of 1983 before the M...
G.E. Apar Lighting (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1995
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT399Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal has been listed for the limited purpose of maintainability, since the appeal has been filed against a communication signed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Technical), H.Q. Office bearing the date 25-8-1994. In this communication, referring to the appellants' letters dated 13-5-1994, 1-6-1994 and 8-8-1994, they are informed that the Collector of Central Excise is pleased to grant them permission for destruction of excisable goods and also order reversal of the Modvat credit availed on the inputs contained in the said goods. Shri Christian, the Id. advocate pleads that though this communication is signed by the Assistant Collector, he conveys the order or decision of the Collector, which has caused prejudice to them and hence the appeal is maintainable.2. After hearing both the sides, we find that though the communication indicates that the Assistant Collector conveys the decision of the Collector of C.Ex. Ahmedabad, it is not a speaking order and such order ...
themis Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1995
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT398Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants' appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,97,239/- towards duty vide O/O No. 18/Demand/94, dated 31-10-1994.2. Shri Christian, the Id. advocate, appearing for the applicants pleads that they have been claiming approval of the price list in terms of Notification No. 245/83, dated 13-9-1983 by claiming 15% discount from the maximum retail price under the Drugs (Price Control) Order. As per this Notification, they have to claim this 15% discount after deducting the excise duty. The Collector has held that the excise duty, which can be deducted can only the basic excise duty, in view of the provisions of Central Excise (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982.Hence, the special excise duty cannot be claimed whereas Section 4(4)(d) clearly indicates that the duty payable is not only the Central Excise duty but also the duties of excise payable under other Central Acts. In view of these provisions of Section 4, the objection upheld by the Colle...
Shantilal Manilal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Bom388
ORDER1. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the Rent Controller, Akola as well as the Resident Deputy Collector (Appellate Authority), Akola have committed serious error of law in dismissing the petitioner's application under clause 13(3)(iii) of the C. P. & Berar Letting of Premises & Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, the 'Rent Control Order, 1949') and holding that the respondent No. 2, the tenant, by entering into partnership in firm, Mahalaxmi Medical & General Stores in which the respondent No. 2 claims to be partner, has not sub-let the premises and subjected himself to the mischief under Clause 13(3)(iii) of the Rent Control Order, 1949. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application on 21-8-1987 under Clause 13(3)(iii) of the Rent Control Order before the Rent Controller, Akola seeking permission to serve quit notice on the tenant/respondent No. 2 for having sub-let the premises to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »