Mumbai Court October 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.
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mukesh Engineering Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1995
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT641Tri(Mum.)bai
1. There is a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal. After hearing both the sides, I condone the delay and with the consent of both the sides, I take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. The appeal from the revenue is against the Order-in-Appeal No. NK (927) 292/95, dated 18-5-1995. The issue relates to denial of Modvat credit in respect of 2 items viz. Reduction gear box and DC drive, only on the allegation that they were not specifically declared under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. There is no dispute that these 2 inputs are otherwise eligible for Modvat credit. In the declaration, the inputs are declared as gear box and speed regulator. Even according to the technical opinion, gear box is admittedly one which varies speed either by increasing or decreasing and reduction gear is meant for reducing the speed. DC Drive likewise also performs the function of regulating speed. In the case of DC drive, this Bench vide Order No.370/95/WRB, dated 20-2-1995 have held that the descri...
Sureshchandra B. Agrawal and Others Vs. Mansukbhai H. Doshi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom118; 1996(2)BomCR533; (1995)97BOMLR85
1. This petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order passed by the Small Causes Court, Bombay, granting notice taken out by the respondent-landlord for bringing the heirs of the deceased tenant on record.2. The short question, which is canvassed by Mr. Abhyankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is whether it is permissible for the Court to bring the heirs of the deceased on record where, admittedly the defendant has died prior to the suit, Mr. Abhyankar contends that the suit filed against the sole defendant, who was dead at the time of filing of the suit, is a nullity. Therefore, Mr. Abhyankar contends that the plaintiffs cannot be allowed subsequently to amend the suit and substitute legal representatives in place of the defendant. Mr. Abhyankar relies upon the judgment of this Court in Mahalu Shidappa v. Shankar Dadu, : AIR1953Bom357 . Mr. Abhyankar also places reliance on the judgments in Pratap Chand v. Krishna Devi, : AIR1988Delhi267 , C. Muttu v. ...
Smt. Sushila Viresh Chhadva Vs. Viresh Nagshi Chhadva
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom94; 1996(2)BomCR531; (1996)98BOMLR274; 1996(1)Mh.L.J.288
ORDER1. By this petition under Art. 227 of the constitution the petitioner - wife has taken exception to an order passed by the Family Court Bombay, rejecting the petitioner's application for interim alimony and expense of the litigation. 2. Briefly, the facts leading to this petition are: The petitioner and the respondent got married on February 6, 1991 at Bombay according to Hindu Vedic Rites. Shortly after the marriage, the petitioner was operated for major ovarian tumour and her right ovary was removed. The respondent thereafter filed a petition in the Family court for a decree of nullity of marriage. The respondent alleged that the parties stayed together just for one day after the marriage and then the petitioner stated complaining about severe pains in her stomach thereafter. The respondent contended that the tumour was malignant and the petitioner's left ovary is affected by cancer and that there is no chance of her conception and bearing a child. According to the respondent th...
Mario Shaw Vs. MartIn Fernandez and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom116; 1996(2)BomCR536; (1996)98BOMLR233
ORDER1. This petition takes exception to an order passed by the Competent Authority, Pune, directing delivery of possession of the licenced premises to the respondents.2. Ms. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised before me a two-fold sub-mission. Firstly, Ms. Purohit submitted that the application of the respondents is barred under O.23 R.1 of the C.P.C. Alternatively, she submitted that the application must be held to be barred by the provisions of S.31H of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947. Before I deal with the submissions of Ms. Purohit, I would briefly state the factual background.3.Under an agreement of leave and licence dated February 4, 1984, the respondents inducted the petitioner in Flat No.9 in building called Manashree Apartments, situate at Fatima nagar, Pune. The agreement of leave and licence was for a period of 11 months and there is no dispute that the said agreement has come to an end by efflux of time. Initially, the res...
Shivkumar Gupta Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR243
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a piece and parcel of land bearing C.T.S. No. 206 (plot No. 37) situate at Juhu Vile Parle Development Scheme, hereinafter referred to as 'the said plot'. The petitioner is interested in constructing a dwelling house on the said plot of land for his own use.2. On 6th April 1994, the petitioner submitted the building plans for construction of building on the said plot of land to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay on the footing that such construction would consume extra FSI of 0.4 (as permissible under Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991) over and above the permissible FSI of 1.00 through his architect Shri B. G. Bhatt. Before submitting the said plan to the Municipal Corporation for its sanction, the petitioner had already acquired T.D.R. (i.e. transferable development rights) from plot bearing C.T.S. No. 176 (part) situate at village Mohili, J.M.M. Road, Ghatkopar under D.C.R. No. 000005 (admeasuring 350 s...
Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Kirloskar Proprietary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom149; 1996(2)BomCR642; (1996)98BOMLR972; MANU/MH/0033/1996
1. These appeals are directed against common order dated 14th June, 1994 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Pune in respondents' applications under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for grant of interim injunction in Civil Suits bearing Nos. 3 of 1993, 4 of 1993 and 5 of 1993 filed by the respondents herein in the Court of the District Judge, Pune at Pune. The 2nd appellant and the respondents in theseappeals are common the 1st appellant in each appeal is different. The respondents in appeal from Order No. 1152 of 1994 are the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 3 of 1993. The respondents in appeal from Order No. 1153 of 1994 are the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 4 of 1993 and the respondents in appeal from Order No. 1154 of 1994 are the plaintiffs in Suit No. 5 of 1993. All these suits have been filed for permanent injunction to restrain the appellants herein from using the word 'Kirloskar' as part of the corporate name of the 1st appellant in each appe...
Sujala Yeshwant Nitsure and ors. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR503
M.S. Rane, J.1. The appellants in this appeal are the original plaintiffs in the Regular Civil Suit No. 2171 of 1977 on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune (hereinafter they will be referred to as the plaintiffs). The 1st respondent is the Municipal Corporation of City of Pune (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Corporation, Pune). The respondent Nos. 2 to 11 are owners of a plot of land being final plot No. 35/12 in T.P.S. No. 1 (hereinafter respondent 2 to 11 will be referred to as the plot holders and said final plot No. 35/12 as the said plot for brevity's sake).2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in their representative capacity and on behalf of the residents of Karve Road, Prabhat Road area, against the Municipal Corporation of Pune and the plot holders inter-alia claiming declaration and injunction to the effect that the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation Pune to the plot holders for the construction of Mangal Karyalaya on the said plot was illegal, ul...
Devidas Vs. Chandrakala and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ566
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. By these counsel notes, the appellants take an exception to the order passed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this court, dated 15.9.1995.These are the appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, wherein a monetary liability is fastened against the appellants by way of damages. Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with a provision of filing an appeal. A proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 173 is as under:Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court, unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less in the manner directed by the High Court.2. When the present appeals were filed, admittedly no such amount was paid along with the appeals. In this behalf the High Court Appellate Side Rules, Chapter IV, Rule 12-A, pro...
Krishna Hirlekar Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1995
Reported in: (1997)LC775Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the appeals are against the Order-in-Original No. S/8-13/93 ADMN, dated 23-3-1995. This order has been passed in the context of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 in the proceedings taken against M/s. Ramzan Karim Shipping Services CHA 11/48. The detailed facts relating to the allegation of CHA's firm are not being recorded in this order, because both the appeals are disposed of on the short ground. Both the, appellants are employees of the CHA firm, who were charged with certain mis-conduct, which resulted in order of security deposit of Rs. 25,000/- furnished by the CHA firm and also suspension of the CHA licence till 31-5-1995. While passing this impugned order, the Collector (vide Para 23) ordered that both the appellants who are employees of the CHA firm, are permanently debarred from transacting any business in the Customs station falling within the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, New Custom House, Collector of Customs, Nhava Sheva and Collecto...
Man Bahadur Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1389
Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is appeal against Judgment dated 23-1-1995 in Special Criminal Case No. 14 of 1994 on the file of the Special N.D.P.S. Act, Mapusa, Goa. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The Appellant and three others were prosecuted by the police for an offence under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The prosecution case is that when the police party was on rounds on 23-12-1993 at about 8.00 p.m. they noticed the two accused persons, the Appellant and one another, who are arrayed as Accused-1 and Accused 2 in the Court below, moving in suspicious manner; the police suspected them to be dealing in drugs. Then A-1 and A-2 were apprehended and were interrogated. Then A-1 and A-2 led the police party to a particular house when the police called the panchas. When they entered the house and took search of the house, they found in a drawer of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »