Mumbai Court November 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 Customs Vs. Bharat Pulverising Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT703Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The revenue have moved this application for granting stay against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (A) bearing No. 631/95 BCH., dated 11-9-1995. The respondents are the importers of goods against the DEEC licence transferred in their favour issued after obtaining suitable endorsement. The licence is quantity based licence and is governed by Customs Notification No. 204/92. Initially the licensing authorities refused to make the licence transferable on the [grounds] that the goods which were exported are prior export obligation basis and had availed of Modvat credit in respect of these inputs. Noticing this objection, the applicant reversed the Modvat credit taken in regard to the inputs used in those export goods and again approacahed the licensing authority, who endorsed the licence, permitting transfer of the inputs. On the basis of that licence, they have imported the goods. The Asst. Collector held that they have already availed of the Modvat credit in respect of the...
Blue Chips Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT142Tri(Mum.)bai
1.For hearing the applicant's appeals on merits, they are required to make the following deposits.____________________________________________________________________Name of applicant Duty Penatly____________________________________________________________________M/s Nova Dyestuff I.P. Ltd. Rs. 3,16,466-/ Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 5,000/-M/s Blue Chips Chemicals Ltd. Rs. 1,14,809/- Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 5000/-M/s Manish Marketing Nil Rs. 10,000/-__________________________________________________________________________ The plant and machinery of the applicants M/s. Nova Dyestuff I. P. Ltd. have been ordered confiscation, but allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in each case, vide Order-in-Original No. 44/MP/95, dated 23-6-1995.2. Shri Willingdon Christian, Id. Advocate mainly points out the following admitted position in the show cause notice as well as in the adjudication order. The entire demand raised from both the units relate to stocks seized from M/s. Manish Marketing (a tr...
Food Corporation of India Vs. M/S. Anpo Shipping Co. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom189; 1996(2)BomCR385
1. The Food Corporation of India, the Petitioners, have filed this petition for setting aside the Award dated 30th October, 1993 which award has been filed in this Court and numbered as 'Award No. 178 of 1994'.2. Briefly stated, relevant facts are as under : (i) The Petitioners are a statutory body established under the provisions of the Food Corporation, of India Act, 1964 for the purpose of trading in the food grains and foodstuffs and other matters connected therewith and incidental thereto and are an agency set up for the purpose of handling import/ export, storage movement, distribution and sale of food grains under the statute having the regional office situate at Bombay. The 1st Respondents are the owners of the vessel 'M. V. IGARUS' (for short, 'the said vessel'); (ii) The petitioners had purchased Vietnam White Rice 35% of 1988-89 crop as per the standard specifications notified by the Central Food Corporation of S. R. Vietnam weighing 12271. 100 Mt Net (245422 bags) from the...
Keshav Baliram Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1111
1. Vide Judgement and Order dated 26-8-1993, passed in Sessions Case No. 135/1992, the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated hereinafter :-i) u/S. 457 I.P.C. to two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- i/d to undergo 6 months R.I. ii) u/S. 376 I.P.C. r/w 511 I.P.C. to five years R.I. a five of Rs. 5000/- i/d undergo RI for a period of one year. iii) u/S. 354 I.P.C. but, no separate sentence was awarded on that count; and. iv) u/S. 506(II) I.P.C. to two years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- i/d 6 months RI. The substantive sentences of the appellant were ordered to run concurrently.2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid convictions and sentences, the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court.3. The prosecution case in brief is that, the prosecutrix Sugandha Laxman Mhatre PW-1 is blind since her birth. She, her mother Bharati Mhatre, her father Laxman Mhatre and the appellant reside in village Bhadwad District T...
Luddur Algoo Yadav Vs. the General Manager, India United Mills and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1609]; (1998)IIILLJ166Bom
B.N. Srikrishna J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order of the Industrial Court, Bombay, dated 15th October, 1992 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 1063 of 1992 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The First Respondent is a Textile Mill owned ask possessed by the National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Limited to which the ownership of the Textile Mill was transferred as a result of these Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. 3. The Petitioner was working in the service of the First Respondent in its Textile Unit Known as (India United Mill No. 2' as a Beam Carrier. The Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 1063 of 1992 before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practices under Item 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The crux of the case pleaded in the complaint was that though the Petitio...
Philips India Ltd. Vs. Sangita Balkrishna and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ1126Bom
ORDERTipnis, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Philips India Limited impugning the legality of the order dated 25th August, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay directing that the complaint - workman be paid subsisting allowance at the rate of 50% for the first 90 days, 75% after first 90 days upto 180 days and 100% thereafter. 2. The complaint was filed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. 3. The only controversy in this petition is to what rate the subsistence allowance should be paid to the workman. The learned Judge relying upon the provisions of the Model Standing Orders passed the impugned order. Shri Rele learned counsel for the petitioner-company contended that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of May & Baker Limited v. Shri Kishore Jaikishandas Icchaporia & Ors. reported in 1991 (2) CLR 176, the order of the Industrial Court is obviously erroneous. 4. Undoubtedly the division bench ruling supports the submi...
Suresh Mogal Salve Vs. Bhagur Nagar Palika and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ277Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India highlights the tribulation to which a litigating workman is subjected when the Industrial Court hearing his complaint chooses to short-circuit the complaint and dismisses it on a hypothetical probability by non-application of mind to the facts of the case. The facts of this case speak for themselves. 2. The First Respondent is the Municipal Council, Bhagur, District Nasik. The petitioner joined the service of the First Respondent on 26.10.1972 as a Clerk. On 20.11.1985 the Petitioner was served with a show cause notice levelling charges about non-compliance with working procedure, misappropriation of certain funds of the Municipality and also over-writing of the accounts. The petitioner replied the show cause notice on 9th December, 1985 and requested for supply of the particulars of the charges. On 7.1.1986 the Petitioner was suspended pending an enquiry. On 4.10.1989 the Petitioner applied...
Smt. Sarladevi Widow of Kundanlal Bandawar Vs. Shailesh S/O Gourishank ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom98; 1996(3)BomCR537
1. This second appeal isfiled by the original plaintiff and thereby shechallenges the concurrent judgment of the trial as well as the lower Appellate Court dismissing her suit.2. This was s suit for declaration and permanent injunction. By this civil suit, the plaintiff had sought a declaration that she could not be evicted without following the due process of law from plot No. 18 described in Schedule appended to the plaint. She had also sought an injunction against the defendants restraining them permanently from dispossessing her from the suit property. In short, the plaintiff had contended that she was a widow of one Shri K. L. Bandawar who was a member of the Income-tax Employees Cooperative Society Limited, Mount Road, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'), being its share-holder. She had contended that the Society had acquired about 9 acres of land for forming the plots therein to be sold to its members. Her husband had paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- on 13-12-1965, vide Re...
Ramchandra Bhikchand Nahar and Another Vs. Narhar Maruti Udavant and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom338; 1996(3)BomCR61; (1996)98BOMLR433
ORDER1. Heard Shri V. S. Bedre for the petitioners and Shri R. N. Dhorde for respondent No, 4. Rest of the respondents are served.2. Narhari Maruti Udavant -- respondent landlord had filed a civil suit bearing R.C.S. No. 206/1978 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rahuri for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises. Bhikchand Nahar was the original tenant and Ram-chandra, Kantilal and Shantilal -- sons of Bhikchand, Dhanabai -- wife of Bhikchand and Surjabai -- daughter of Bhikchand were joined as defendants in that suit. On 23rd September, 1981, consent terms were filed by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1, by which it was agreed by the parties to the consent terms that the suit premises is in possession of defendant No. 1 alone and other defendants have no concern with it and their names may be deleted from the array of the the defendants. It was also agreed that the premises should be continued in possession of defendant No. 1 for a further period of five years o...
M/S. Kelkar and Kelkar Vs. Indian Airlines and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR303; 1996(1)MhLj854
ORDERS.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. This suit has been filed for an order under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act') to file the arbitration agreement in this court and for an order of reference to arbitration in accordance therewith. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are as under : (i) Sometime in the year 1988, the 1st Defendants, being desirous of constructing their own building at Pune, invited tenders by public notice published on or about 12th May, 1988. In response to such tender notice got published by the 1st Defendants, the plaintiffs submitted their tender which was accepted by the 1st Defendants. (ii) A contract was arrived at between the plaintiffs and the 1st Defendants for construction of building for the 1st Defendants at Pune which project was described as 'construction of Airlines House at Pune' on the terms mentioned in the Notice dated 12th May, 1988 inviting tenders, in the tender dated 27th May, 1988, in the letter of acceptance dated 30th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »