Mumbai Court August 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.
Collector of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Anil Starch Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT288Tri(Mum.)bai
1. There is a delay of one day in filing the Reference Application.Having regard to the reasons pleaded, the delay is condoned.2. Though the Respondents have requested for an adjournment, after hearing Shri Gurdeep Singh, the ld. JDR, in view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, I am not inclined to grant the request.3. The Reference Application has been moved by the Revenue in respect of this Bench Order No. 1910/94-WRB, dated 17-10-1994. The Respondents received back 599 bags of Dextrose Monohydrate, which were earlier cleared on payment of duty under 3 gate passes. These goods were returned by the consignee as defective and hence they were taken into process by mixing the returned goods with the running lot instead of separately processing them. When they claimed refund of duty paid Under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the department refused to grant refund on the ground that reprocessing has not been separately done and satisfactory accountal of the repr...
Ghansham S/O Narayan Ninawe Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ27
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur, on 19-11-1991, after trial in Sessions Case No. 37/91, State of Maharashtra v. Ghansham Narayan Ninawe, has convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for having committed murder of his wife Shakuntaladevi. 2. Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the accused/appellant, candidly submitted that the prosecution has amply established the involvement of the accused/appellant which ultimately resulted in death of Shakuntaladevi and he does not have much to say on this aspect of the matter, but, according to him, for death of Shakuntaladevi, wife of the accused/appellant, he could not be held guilty of committing culpable homicide amounting to murder, but he could be held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and, therefore, the accused/appellant could be convicted only under Section 304 IPC. According to Mr. Daga, it is single blow case and the ac...
Akhil Maharashtra Kamgar Union Vs. Warden and Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ578Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an interlocutory order of the Industrial Court, Thane, dated 23rd September, 1994 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 166 of 1993 under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Petitioner is a registered Trade Union which represents some of the workmen working in the industrial establishment of the First Respondent at Wagle Estate, Thane. The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 166 of 1993 before the Industrial Court at Thane alleging, inter alia, therein that the workmen of the First Respondent had not been paid their wages from February 1992, though their services had not been terminated by following any procedure in law. It was also pointed that, right from February 1992, neither was any manufacturing activity going on in the industrial establishment of the First Respondent, nor was ...
Deepak Mukundrai Trivedi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR1
N.D. Vyas, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition is an Advocate of this Court and he has challenged the order of dismissal passed against him. While challenging the order of dismissal, he has also prayed for setting aside and quashing of the order of suspension. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :- (A) The petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate by the Bar Council of Maharashtra on 28th October 1980 and has been since then practising as an Advocate of this Court. On 1st March 1984 he was selected and appointed by the Respondent No. 1 in their Legal Department as an 'Assistant Law Officer'. As an Assistant Law Officer of the Respondent No. 1 the petitioner was required to act, appear and plead on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in various Courts of Law. The Head of the Legal Department of the Respondent No. 1 is knows as the 'Law Officer' who is assisted by several 'Deputy Law Officers', 'Assistant Law Officers' and 'Junior Law Officer...
Rear Admiral Gupteshwar Rai Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR276
M.B. Shah, C.J.1. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Sea-boy in 1956. On 9th October, 1963 he was promoted as a Sub-Lieutenant. On 1st July, 1991 the petitioner was promoted as Captain. In July, 1991 the petitioner was promoted as Rear Admiral. The post of Rear Admiral is a tenure post of four years or upto the age of 56 years, whichever is earlier.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Vice-Admiral in the year 1994 and that his case is not considered arbitrarily and capriciously by the Promotion Board No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Promotion Board') in the year 1994. He has further submitted that the entire procedure for selection of officers for promotion to the rank of Vice-Admiral followed by the respondents is arbitrary as there are no guidelines to the Promotion Board prescribing any fixed dates to consider the cases of eligible candidates and as to how many candidates should be consider...
The Crane Owners' Association and Anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR587; (1995)97BOMLR559
N.D. Vyas, J.1. The questions raised therein being similar, both the petitions are disposed off by this common judgment. The petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 751 of 1993 is an Association of owners of 'Cranes' and is registered under the Non-trading Corporation Act of 1959. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1008 of 1993 are owners of three container handlers which are registered as 'Vehicles' with the R.T.O., Raigad under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For the sake of convenience, I shall only deal with the facts of the Writ Petition No. 751 of 1993.2. It is the contention of the petitioners that the mobile cranes (which description for the present petitions would include container handlers also) are vehicles and are registered as motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; that formerly cranes were registered as non-transport vehicles, however, with the introduction of the new Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, they came to be classified as transport vehicles. The...
M/s. Nagpur Cable Operators' Association Vs. Commissioner of Police, N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom180; 1995(2)MhLj753
ORDER1. Simple objection of maintainability of this writ petition as Criminal Writ Petition raised by Mr. Sunil Manohar, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has turned out to be a complex issue in view of not so clear provisions of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.2. Mr. Sunil Manohar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present criminal writ petition on the ground that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner relate to enforcement of civil rights and, therefore, filing of the present criminal writ petition for enforcement of civil rights, is misconceived.3. We heard Mr. Sunil Manohar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Mr. B. G. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. M. Gordey, 'A' Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, on this question.4. During the course of arguments, since wider issue of classification of writ petitions/ applications ...
Bank Karmachari Sangh Vs. K. R. Pawar, Member, Industrial Court, Pune ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR141; (1996)ILLJ955Bom; 1996(1)MhLj539
B. N. Shrikrishna, J. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated 3rd February 1994 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune in Revision Application (BIR) No. 2 of 1993 purportedly in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Section 86J of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Petitioner is the representative and approved Union for the Banking Industry in the local area of Pune District and Cantonment. 3rd Respondent is an Undertaking in the Banking Industry in a co-operative sector. 3. For some reasons, the Petitioner Union, despite being a representative and approved Union and having the legal right to represent employees in every undertaking in the Co-operative Banking Industry in the co-operative sector in the concerned local area, appears to have neglected the employees of the 3rd respondent employer. Consequently, the employees and the employer assumed that they could se...
Kanchan Amar Asrani Vs. Amar Vishindas Asrani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR685; (1995)97BOMLR687
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel at length viz. Mr. Makhija for the appellate-wife and Mr. A.K Abhyankar for the respondent-husband.2. This is an appeal by the wife against the judgment and decree dated 15th October, 1993 passed by the Family Court, Bombay, in M.J. Petition No. 597 of 1986. By the said Decree, the husband's petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife has been allowed. Consequently, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree for divorce. Admittedly, the only child son Vishal is all along with the respondent-father since 15th July, 1983. The wife has been held entitled to the maintenance of Rs. 700/- per month from the date of the passing of the order. No order for return of ornaments was made since there was no specific claim in the form of a counter-claim nor was any Court fees paid therefor. It is this judgment which is challenged before us in appeal. After the matter was heard initially, we had suggested to the counsel to ...
Anchor PorcelaIn Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT152Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the aforesaid nine appeals have been filed against the same Order-in-Appeal No. 157 to 165/95 (66 to 74-Raj) CE/Collr (A)/Ahd, dated 27-3-1995 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The facts are not elaborately recorded because the appeals are mainly argued on merits on the legal position as to whether appeals are sustainable in respect of provisional assessment orders passed by the Assistant Collector. The appellants' filed classification lists claiming benefit of Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993. The classification lists were approved provisionally with the direction to comply with the procedure prescribed under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Against that order, the appellants went in appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) held that there is no legal basis for the appellants grievances at this stage, when the classification lists continue to be under provisional assessment and even the benefit, as claimed in the clas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »