Mumbai Court August 1995 Judgments
M/S. Krishna Traders Vs. R.G. Khedkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom83; 1996(1)BomCR342; (1995)732BOMLR97; 1995(2)MhLj730
ORDER1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has sought issue of a writ of quo warranto against respondent No. 1 In substance, the petitioner has impugned notification dated 22nd September, 1994 issued by respondent No. 2 appointing respondent No. 1 as the President of Bombay Suburban District Forum under Section 10 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.2. The respondent No. 1 is a retired Additional Session Judge. Section 10(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that each district forums shall consist of a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District judge to be nominated by the State Government, to be its President. The Respondent No. 1 fulfils the requirements of Section 10(1)(a) of the Act.3. On 30th December 1989 the respondent No. 1 was appointed as the president of the District Consumer Redressal Forum. On 29th October 1991, the respondent No. 1 resigned from the said office. On 25th November 91, the resignat...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Misra Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ797
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused against the order of his conviction and sentence dated 3/4/5/6/9-11-1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 25 of 1986. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that, the appellant-accused was working as Assistant Director (Investigation) in Income-tax Department, Bombay. It is alleged that on 24-10-1983 the appellant-accused demanded Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty lacs) from the complainant Shri Sadruddin H. Daya, the Managing Partner of M/s. Dawood Shoes, as gratification other than legal remuneration under the pretext that the matter of evasion of huge Income-tax will be settled. It is alleged that the Income-tax department had carried out various raids on the business premises of M/s. Dawood Shoes and M/s. Metro Dawood Shoes Pvt. Ltd. It is also revealed that sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore) was due as Income-tax arrears from the aforesaid companies. It is alleged that the complainant being a ...
Tag this Judgment!Godfrey Philips India Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: 1996(85)ELT242(Bom)
Shah, C.J.1. To the Petitioner No. 1, Godfrey Philips India Limited, notices to show cause-cum-demand were issued under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), that they are taking deposits from their wholesale buyers and on such deposits they are not paying interest and in turn they are earning huge profits both by earning interest and/or by utilising such amount in purchasing fixed assets and/or procuring raw materials for manufacture of finished products viz. cigarettes and this has helped them in lowering down assessable value on cigarettes. It was stated that this benefit influenced fixation of selling rates of cigarettes on lower side and price paid by such wholesale dealers cannot be treated as sole consideration for the sale. Hence a show cause notice was issued under Section 11A of the Act for allegedly short levy of excise duty by pointing out that on the basis of such under-valuation large amount of approximately Rs. 44 crores...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Director of Health Services, Office of Directorate Health Servic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ102Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated 6th March, 1990 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune in Revision Application (ULP) No. 53 of 1989 confirming the order dated 18th March, 1989 made by the Labour Court, Pune, in Complaint (ULP) No. 32 of 1984, both 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 Respondent was appointed as a Statistical Assistant (VS) in the health Service Department from 26th May, 1982. He was then transferred to the Office of the Deputy Director of Health Service with effect from 7.9.1982. He was once again transferred to the office of the Joint Director of Health Services from 21.9.1982 as a Computer Co-ordinator in the grade 335-680 in which he was drawing salary of Rs. 900/- per month as a permanent employee. On 7.1.1984 the Respondent was served with an order issued by t...
Tag this Judgment!Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. Vs. V. the Association of Engineering Wo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ564Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These two writ petitioners are in the nature of cross petitions, which impugn the same order dated 6th April, 1990 made by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 153 of 1985 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Therefore, they need to be heard and disposed of by common judgment. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4821 of 1990 shall hereinafter, for convenience, be referred to as 'the employer' and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4879 of 1990 (the First respondent in writ petition No. 4821 of 1990) shall be referred to as 'the union'. 3. The short facts necessary to be considered for deciding these two writ petitions are the following :- (a) On 7th July, 1985, the employer put up a notice on the notice-board of its industrial establishment declaring suspension of operations in the industrial establishment on several allegations, in...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Balaji Traders and anr. Vs. Indian Bank and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR481
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.2. Both these appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment since the facts and grounds raised therein are common.3. The present two appeals are against the order passed by the trial Court, holding that it has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suits and on that count directing the return of the plaints for institution in proper Court.4. The appellant in Appeal from Order No. 44 of 1995 M/s Shri Balaji Traders and the appellant in Appeal from Order No. 45 of 1995, Suraj Salt Traders (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') have filed Special Civil Suit No. 110 of 1995 and Special Civil Suit No. 109 of 1995 respectively, before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amravati, impleading therein the first respondent-Indian Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant No. 2') and the second respondent Maharashtra State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant No. 1'). These were the ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Banarsidas Agarwal Vs. Vijay Kumar B. Agarwal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1995
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)542
ORDERV.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This petition is preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking this Court's inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying for quashing the process issued against the petitioner-Accused No. 2 in the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant, disclosing an offence punishable under section 420 read with section 34. I.P.C. as also an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Heard Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Accused No, 2 and Mr. K.N. Bhatia, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 complainant. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Accused No. 2 that there is no specific allegation in the complaint against the petitioner-Accused No. 2 and the learned Magistrate has, without applying his mind, issued process against the petitioner-Accused No. 2. It reveals from the record that two cheques were purported to be issu...
Tag this Judgment!Chemilab Corpn. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT800Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 1813/90 BCH [F. No. S/49-16/90 L (Air), dated 20-12-1990], rejecting the appellants' appeal.2. Shri Patel, the ld. advocate, appearing for the appellants, pleads that the goods imported viz. Precoated Thin Layer Chromatograph plates were claimed clearance against 2 REP licences valid for import of non OGL capital goods as per the provisions of Para 177(2) of AM 1988-91.The objection taken by the department is that these plates, being essential part of Chromatograph cannot be construed to be capital goods and hence in that view they were ordered confiscation by the Asstt.Collector but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 5,300/-. The appeal against this order was confirmed by Collector (A). Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. It is the plea of Shri Patel that capital goods include accessories and the goods imported are accessories, which contribute to effective the function of Chromatograph. He refers to t...
Tag this Judgment!Avertson Paul Fernandes Vs. Rabindra A.L. Das and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ622
1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges in this petition that portion of the Order dated 16th March, 1995 of the Asst. Sessions Judge (B), South Goa, Margo, remanding back the matter to the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Margo for proceeding further with the case after complying with the provisions of Section 202(2) of the Cr.P.C.3. The respondent No. 1 herein had filed a complaint before the J.M.F.C., Margo under section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence under sections 435, 436 and 447 of I.P.C. Along with the complaint the respondent herein has stated the names of witnesses also to be examined in that case. The learned Magistrate after examining one witness who was present in Court has taken cognizance of the offence. The offences disclosed were those triable by the Sessions Court. The learned Magistrate has thus committed the proceedings to the Asst. Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margo. After committal an objection was raised at the i...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip S/O Ramchandra Umare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ721; 1996(2)MhLj1004
ORDER1. Heard Smt. K. V. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri K. S. Dhote, Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service on behalf of the State. At the request of both the learned counsel, this revision application is heard and disposed of at this stage finally. 2. The first and foremost point which requires to be considered before I advert to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is whether the lower appellate Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has power to suspend the sentence or grant bail to enable the accused to prefer revision application before High Court after the appeal against the conviction and sentence has been decided. In large number of cases, it has been found that the Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge, the Joint Sessions Judge, or the lower appellate Court as the case may be, suspends the sentence for some time even after disposal of appeal against the conviction and sentence to enabl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »