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.
Hemendra V. Shah Vs. Stock Exchange, Bombay, and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR270; (1995)97BOMLR737; [1996]87CompCas258(Bom); 1995(2)MhLj770
S.N. Variava, J.1. This petition is filed for a declaration that there is no valid and subsisting or binding arbitration agreement between the petitioner and the sixth respondent. A declaration is sought that the third respondent is not entitled to fill in the vacancy caused by resignation of one Mr. G. B. Desai, and that the purported appointment of one Mr. J. B. Bhatt is illegal, invalid, inoperative and of no effect. A further declaration is sought that the award, if any, passed would be illegal and invalid. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was the clerk of the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent was a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange. The petitioner applied for membership in the year 1988. It is claimed that the sixth respondent gave his no-objection and also stood as a guarantor. On April 13, 1989, the petitioner was enrolled as a member. 3. The sixth respondent claimed that the petitioner was the proprietor of one R. Dalal and Co. The sixth respondent fil...
Ramcharan Bhudiram Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR190; 1995CriLJ4048
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Since both these Criminal appeals arise out of a common incident, we proposed disposing them of by a common judgment. 2. Vide judgment and order dated 20th October, 1993 passed by Shri S. B. Sonar, Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 426/87 the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :- Appellant Ramcharan Budhiram Gupta : i) Under Section 394, IPC to 6 years rigorous imprisonment; ii) Under Section 392, IPC read with 34, IPC to 6 years rigorous imprisonment; and iii) Under Section 452 read with 34, IPC to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rupees 2000/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant - Amarsingh alias Babusingh s/o Santoshsingh Thakur. i) Under Section 394, IPC to 8 years rigorous imprisonment; ii) Under Section 392 read with 34 IPC to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further u...
Shree Synthetics Ltd Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT785(Bom)
Kapadia, J. 1. By this petition, Petitioners seek to challenge orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dismissing the Petitioners' appeal against the order of confiscation on the ground of delay and also on the ground that no sufficient cause for condonation was shown by the Petitioners. 2. Facts giving rise to this Petition, briefly, are as follows:3. Petitioners imported 5940 kilograms of goods known as wetting out Agents from time to time. After the said goods landed in India, the Assistant Collector of Customs issued a show-cause notice on 15-10-1979 to the effect that the said goods were banned items under Appendix III of the AM/79 Policy. By order dated 26-12-1979 Petitioners' contention that the said goods were not banned under the Policy was rejected by the Collector. The Collector also ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3 of the Import & Export (Control) Act, 1947. Petitioners were, howev...
Nagare P.D. Vs. Skf Bearings India Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ571Bom
1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Awards dated November 16, 1990 and January 24, 1991 made by the 2nd Labour Court, Pune, in reference (IDA) No. 409 of 1988 under the provisions of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The relevant facts : The Petitioner was employed as a Packer in the employment of the 1st Respondent in its factory from 1977. On June 16, 1987, while working, he suffered an employment injury which caused him some disability and made it difficult for him to use his hand. On January 22, 1988, after about one year, he was called upon to work on the Rivet Insertion Machine No. 424. While he was working on the said machine, he did not run the machine at the normal speed, but continued to run the same at a slow speed. He also broke the punch and the nozzles on the said machine and did not obey the instructions given to him by his official superiors in regard to the...
Smt. Sohinidevi Mohanlal JaIn Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR328
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. An inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the representation of the detenu by the Central Government, in our view, has rendered the continued detention of the detenu null and void.2. Petitioner is the wife of the detenu Shri Mohanlal Manrupchand Jain. By the present habeas corpus petition, petitioner seeks to impugn an order of detention dated 8th September, 1994 passed by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, being an officer especially empowered under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The order of detention was served on the detenu on the 12th September, 1994 and the detenu was incarcerated.3. The material dates, which are relevant for deciding the controversy raised before us, are as under:---On 25th of October, 1994 a representation alongwith a forwarding letter dated 24th of October, 1994, was handed over by Smt. A.M.Z. Ansari, Advocate, to the Superintendent of...
Ewac Alloys Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1995
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT759(Bom)
Kapadia, J.1. The short point which arises for determination in the present case is whether Respondent No. 2 was entitled to commence proceedings under the provisions of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act against the petitioners on the ground of wilful suppression or wilful mis-statement as alleged. 2. The facts giving rise to this Writ Petition, briefly, are as follows: 3. At the relevant time, petitioners were the subsidiary of Larsen & Toubro. At that time Larsen & Toubro were the sole selling agents in respect of goods manufactured by the petitioner-Company. On 1st October, 1975 pursuant to the amendment of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, show-cause notice was given on December 20, 1977 by the Assistant Collector of Customs. By the said show-cause notice, the petitioners were asked to explain whether secondary packing prices was included in the assessable value of the goods sold through Larsen & Toubro. By an Order dated 2nd June 1981, the Assistant Collector of Customs ...
Jayant Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT552(Bom)
Kapadia, J.1. By this Petition, petitioners seek to challenge Show Cause Notice dated December 3, 1986 by which the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports has purported to exercise authority under Clause 3 read with Clause 8 of the Import (Control) Order, 1955, as it then stood, calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the petitioners should not be debarred from importing any goods and receiving Import Licence through S.T.C. and M.M.T.C. or any other Canalising Agency. 2. Facts giving rise to this Writ Petition, briefly, are as follows : 3. Petitioners' imported Fatty Acids of the quantity of 3493.86 M.T. valued at Rs. 2,58,58,605 in 1984. Pursuant to the adjudication proceedings, the Collector, in view of Public Notice No. 47-ITC(PN) 83, dated 4th November 1983 came to the conclusion that importation of the Fatty Acids through Canalised Agency was not proper and accordingly directed confiscation of the goods. Being aggrieved by the said Order, petitioners preferred Appea...
Natibabu Khadka Vs. State of Goa, as Represented by the Anti Narcotic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR76
D.R. Dhanuka1. This is an appeal against an order of conviction passed by the Court of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances at Mapusa dated 29th December, 1993 in Special Criminal Case No. 3 of 1993. The appellant was accused No. 1 in the said Criminal Case. The appellant was charged with an offence under section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. At the trial of the said Special Criminal Case, the accused was tried for the said alleged offence alongwith one Ashok Bajracharya and Ramesh Basnet. The charge framed by the learned Special Judge at the trial of the said case indicates that the appellant was charged with the following alleged offences :---That on about the 29th day of December 1992 at somewhere in between 2.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. at Vozrant, Vagator, the appellant was found in possession of charas weighing 2 kgs. 670 gms. worth about Rs. 1,06,800/- by keeping the same hidden in the dashboard and the box near the door of the bus No....
Bension Joseph Hayeema Vs. Sharon Bension Hayeema
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR493; I(1996)DMC546
A.V. SavantThis is an appeal by the husband - original petitioner - Bension Joseph Hayeema, whose petition for divorce has been dismissed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bombay on 7th March, 1992. The brief facts giving rise to the matrimonial dispute are as under:1. The appellant - Bension - married respondent Sharon in accordance with the Jewish law of Marriage on 29th December, 1974 at Bombay and the spouses started living together at Coronation Mansion, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, Dadar, Bombay 400 014. The flat consists of a big drawing room, a bed room, kitchen, two bathrooms and two balconies. However, apart from the appellant and his wife, his parents, two unmarried sisters, two brothers, one of them with his wife, were also staying in the said premises.2. On 20th October, 1975, daughter named Florence was born. She is today 19 years of age and has just passed her B.Com. On 31st October, 1978 a son named Gideon was born, who is today 16 years of age and has recently passed his...
Dilkush G. Sinai Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1995
Reported in: (1995)97BOMLR398
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This is an appeal against order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant on 27th July 1994 by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Court at Mapusa in Special Criminal Case No. 3 of 1994. The learned Special Judge found the appellant accused guilty of charge of having been in unlawful possession of 16 gms. of white powder known as Heroin valued at Rs. 80,000/- in contravention of Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as the said Act and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 21 of the said Act. The learned Special Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The learned Judge issued various directions concerning confiscation of the muddemal property etc., as set out in his judgment dated 27th July, 1994.2. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »