Mumbai Court July 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.
Perfect Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC538Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal of the Collector (Appeals) No. PCJ-101/BRD/94, dated 14-6-1994 rejecting the appellants' appeal. The appellants, despite the fact that their value of clearances did not exceed the specified limits for exemption under Notification 175/86, paid duty by mistake in respect of clearances effected under GP 113 dated 25-3-1989, which they claimed by way of refund and the said refund claim, reportedly filed within time, was allowed by the Assistant Collector. The cheque dated 20-11-1989 was issued on 18-12-1989 to the appellants. However on 4-5-1990 a SCN was issued to them for recovery of the refund erroneously granted because the duty burden has already been passed on by the appellants to the consumers and the refund granted would cause unjust enrichment to them. The appellants resisted the notice by citing various case laws submitting that there is no provision in the statute for denial of refund on this ground and it is not open to review t...
Sangali Dist. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Tukaram Atmaram Jadha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ1247Bom
1. This Writ Petition, though formidable in size, raises a question of law, which is no longer res integra and settled by a judgment of this Court. 2. The Petition invokes Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and impugns an Order of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, dated March 20, 1989, made in Appeal (IC) No. 11 of 1988 under Section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as Act'). 3. The Petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The First Respondent was working as a Cashier in the Ranjani Branch of the Petitioner. He was served with a Charge-sheet dated November 15, 1985, by which several allegations of fraud and dishonesty in connection with the business and property of the employer were alleged against him. We are, however, not concerned with the details of the charge. A domestic enquiry was commenced into the charges levelled against the First Respondent. It is an admitted p...
Ramesh Ratanrao Thakur Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR435
V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused against the order of his conviction and sentence dated 8th March, 1989 passed by the learned Special Judge, Dhule, in Special Case No. 2 of 1984.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant-accused was working as Assistant Project Officer for Industries at Dhule. The Central Government had introduced a scheme known as 'Training of Rural Youths for self-employment' under which the idea was to give some training to the male and female members especially from villages to enable them to have their own means of livelihood. The said scheme was introduced in Dhule District and was being implemented through the District Rural Development Agency. One Kalawati, wife of Harishchandra Wankhede, was conducting tailoring classes at different training centres. For this job she was getting some amount per student as grant. It is the prosecution case that some outstanding dues were to be recovered from the District Rural...
Prakash S. Akotkar and Others Vs. Mansoorkha Gulabkha and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom36; 1996(2)BomCR311; 1996(2)MhLj30
ORDER1. Admit. Heard counsel for the appellant and the respondents.2. This appeal arises from the order of Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. Buldana, on an application under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, for an injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering with the respondents' possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The learned Civil Judge has allowed the said prayer. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.3. The property in dispute belonged to one Smt. Noor Jahan who died in 1987. She had four sons who are defendants 1 to 4, before the lower Court. The defendant No. 1 alleging that he is in exclusive possession of the property executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff he was put in possession of the entire property on the same day. He instituted the present suit for the specific enforcement of the agreement against all the children of Noor Jahan and also their aliened-defendants 5 and 6. It was contended on behalf of appellants that the c...
The Goa Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Etc. Vs. Government ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom121; 1997(4)BomCR357; (1995)97BOMLR614
ORDERDhanuka, J. 1. The Goa Agricultural produce Market Committee impugns the Award dated 26th July 1993 made by the Deputy Collector (LA) Panaji, under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The issue as to whether the application made by the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.30/94 on 27th April, 1987 for re-determination of compensation was filed in time or not stands finally concluded by decision of this Court dated 17th Feb. 1993 in Writ Petition No. 6/93. The said decision has acquired finality and binds all the parties to the said writ petition. The Goa Agricultural Produce Market Committee was respondent No. 4 in the said Writ Petition No. 6/93. It is not open to us to allow the parties to reopen the controversy already decided by this Court by its earlier judgment as foresaid as no appeal or review petition was filed against the said judgment. As regards the merits of the said Award is concerned, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30/94 is agreeable to deletion of be...
Mahadevo Murlidhar Ambekar Vs. Smt. Padmini Wd/O. Venkatesh Joshi and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1995
Reported in: (1995)97BOMLR608
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is a Writ Petition directed against the Judgment dated 31.1.1995 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 271 of 1991 on the file of the second Additional District Judge, Solapur. Heard both the sides.2. It appears the original landlord Venkatesh filed an eviction suit against the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Venkatesh died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs were brought on record who are Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in this Writ petition.The tenants contested the suit.After trial, the trial Court allowed eviction suit only on one ground namely, that the act of the tenant amounts to nuisance and annoyance. The trial Court rejected the other two grounds.The tenants challenged the eviction decree by filing an appeal before the District Court. The Landlords also challenged the adverse findings against them regarding the other two grounds by filing cross-objections.After hearing both the sides, the learned appellate Judge dismissed the Appeal filed by the ten...
Rubyana Alias Smita Sanjib Bali Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR410; 1996CriLJ148
Majithia, J. 1. Vide judgment and order dated December 24, 1993 in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1993, the Special Judge, Pune, convicted the appellant-Rubyana @ Smita Sanjib Bali for the offences punishable under Sections 20 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the N.D.P.S. Act') and sentenced her to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for both the counts under Sections 20 and 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. She was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 read with Section 7 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. She was given the benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The prosecution case runs as under :- Pilu al...
Sadashiv Mallikarjun Kheradkar Vs. Smt. Nandini Sadashiv Kheradkar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR454; (1995)687BOMLR97; 1995CriLJ4090; 1995(2)MhLj733
1. An interesting question of law arises in this petition regarding the powers of the Court in ordering the blood examination when there is dispute about the parentage of the child. This Writ Petition is directed against the Order dated 21-10-1993 below Exhibits 46 and 52 in H.M. Petition No. 119 of 1988. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent Petition is taken up for final hearing. I have heard of both the Counsel, the both the Counsel at length. 2. Few facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows : The petitioner-husband filed a Petition in the trial Court for a decree for divorce against his wife, the first respondent. The alleged paramour of the first Respondent is made as Respondent No. 2. The main allegation in the Petition is that after marriage which took place on 8-3-1983, the Petitioner and the first Respondent were residing at Kolhapur. It is stated that the wife deserted the Petitioner and left the matrimonial home and went away to her parents h...
Maharashtra Shramik Sena Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR775]; (1996)ILLJ639Bom
ORDERShah, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner questions the correctness, validity, legality, etc., of the judgment and order rendered by the Industrial Court, Bombay, on April 27, 1995 in Applications (MRTU) Nos. 37 and 49 of 1992. Those two were the applications filed before the Industrial Court by Respondent No. 2 herein, one was an application under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') and the other was under Section 14 of the Act. By the application under Section 13 of the Act, Respondent No. 2 prayed for the cancellation of the recognition granted to the petitioner. By the other application under Section 14 of the Act, Respondent No. 2 prayed for grant of its recognition. Both these applications filed by Respondent No. 2 having been allowed, the petitioner is in writ petition before us. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are more than convinced that there is ...
Gangaram Atmaram Vishwasrao Vs. the National Textile Corporation (Sn) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR465; (1996)ILLJ1029Bom
Srikrishna, J, 1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned an order dated 22nd October, 1993 made by the Industrial Court at Bombay in Complaint (ULP) No. 342 of 1988 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 petitioner was working as a Fitter in the Ring Department of the New Hind Textile Mills, Bombay, belonging to the first respondent. His service came to be terminated on 1st January, 1981. He filed an application before the Labour Court alleging that he was a permanent employee and that his service had been dispensed with by way of retrenchment contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The petitioner sought the relief of reinstatement in service with full back wages. His Application (BIR) No. 7 of 1981 before the Labour Court was allowed by the Labour C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »