Mumbai Court September 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.
Hindustan Lever Research Centre Employees Union Vs. V.N. Gaikwad and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ973Bom
D.R. Dhanuka, J. PART I - (Judgment dictated in Open Court in the Morning Session) 1. The petitioner is a registered Trade Union entitled to represent the workmen employed with Hindustan Lever Research Centre. The petitioner union has filed this petition on behalf of and for benefit of one of its members Shri M. D. Jadhav. 2. From the year 1968, the said Shri Jadhav started attending to the job work of attending to the air conditioning plant of the respondent no. 2. The petitioner contends that Shri Jadhav was a regular workman of respondent no. 2 since 1968. The Respondent No. 2 contends that Shri Jadhav has allowed to perform the said job work merely as on contract basis and Jadhav became regular employee of respondent no. 2 only on 19th October, 1981 as Process Worker, F-Grade. Sometime in 1973-74, Shri Jadhav was required to attend to water pumps at the Research Centre of respondent no. 2 on contract basis. It is the case of Respondent No. 2 that at that time Shri Jadhav used to wo...
Jagannath Ramchandra Munekar Vs. Nivrutti Alias Bapusaheb Thite and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR220; (1996)98BOMLR863
M.S. Rane, J.1. The Election Petition herein filed under the Representation of People's Act of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) calls in question the election of Nivrutti alias Bapusaheb Thite - the 1st respondent herein to the 43 - Baramati Parliamentary Constituency, District Pune, held on 26th May, 1994 wherein the 1st respondent was declared as a returned candidate. The Principal ground upon which the said election of the 1st respondent is challenged is the improper rejection of the Nomination paper of Shri Shinde Waman Malhari one of the candidates who has filed his nomination for the said election which according to the petitioner has been done by the 2nd respondent illegally and improperly.2. Few relevant facts in the background :Bye-election of 43-Baramati Parliamentary Constituency was announced by the Election Commission in the last week of April-1994. The few relevant dates are mentioned herein - below-(i) Issue of Notification - 26th April, 1994.(ii) Last date...
Jhulelal Land Development Corpn. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1995
Reported in: (1996)56ITD345(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the CIT under Section 263. A short and interesting issue that arises in this appeal relates to the assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are these. Assessee is a partnership firm which acquired development rights in a plot of land at Dahisar, Bombay, in the year 1979 for a consideration of Rs. 17,34,000.However, from 1979 to 1988, the assessee could not exploit this right of development except construction of a boundary wall. In the year 1988, the assessee decided to dispose of the said right and ultimately sold the same on 16-7-1988 to M/s. Vardhman Developers for a consideration of Rs. Two crores. Out of this amount, assessee received only Rs. 1.95 crores during this year. It invested Rs. 1,93,75,000 in IDBI bonds on 26-7-1988 for claiming exemption under Section 54E.Return for the assessment year 1989-90 was filed declaring an income of Rs. 3,14,840. In the return assessee declared ...
Gomaji Vs. Smt. Yashoda and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC487
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this application filed by applicant Gomaji Ghanshyam Mohadikar under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is prayed that the proceedings initiated by non-applicant No. 1 Yashoda under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tumsar and registered Misc. Criminal Case No. 75 of 1995 be quashed and set aside. This prayer is made by the applicant on the ground that prior to the initiation of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, the applicant has already initiated proceedings for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur and the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the non-applicant only to harass the applicant.2. The applicant Gomaji Ghanshyam Mohadikar (for short, the 'husband') married the non-applicant No. 1 Yashoda (for short, the 'wife') on 20.6.1991 and the marriage between the parties took place at Sihora in Bhandara district. After so...
Gomaji Ghanshyam Mohadikar Vs. Yashoda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1995
Reported in: II(1996)DMC469
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this application filed by applicant Gomaji Ghanshyam Mohadikar under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is prayed that the proceedings initiated by non-applicant No. 1 Yashoda under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tumsar and registered Misc. Criminal Case No. 75 of 1995 be quashed and set aside. This prayer is made by the applicant on the ground that prior to the initiation of the proceeding under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant has already initiated proceedings for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur and the application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the non-applicant only to harass the applicant.2. The applicant Gomaji Ghanshyam Mohadikar (for short, the 'husband') married the non-applicant No. 1 Yashoda (for short, the 'wife') on 20.6.1991 and the marriage between the parties ...
Mahadeorao Son of Zabuji Ugale Vs. Kisanrao Son of Mahadeorao Lawange
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom221; 1996(2)BomCR487
1. This is an appeal under, Section, 47 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, against the order passed by the Trial Court under the provisions of Section 10 of that Act, appointing the respondent Kisanrao Mahadeorao Lawange as a guardian of minor Pravin Mohan Ugale and granting custody of the said minor to the respondent.2. Said Pravin is a son of one MohanMahadeorao Ugale and Nirmala Mohan Ugale. Present appellant is the paternal grand-father of the minor as he is the father of said Mohan Ugale. Present respondent is the father of Nirmala. In short, this is the contest between maternal grand-father and paternal grand-father of Pravin for his custody and guardianship. It so happened that on 25-4-1994, said Mohan null Nirmala along with their other child died as accidental death. The question of custody has occasioned due to that untimely accidental death of the parents of Pravin.3. An application came to be filed by the present respondent, maternal grand-father being an application under S...
Damodar M. Vaidya Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Sholapur an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR540
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this petition the petitioner seeks relief of having the Order bearing No. ADM-SEC-2-Establishment-5-955 dated 25th February, 1985 passed by the Administrator, Sholapur Municipal Corporation quashed.2. In the year 1969, the petitioner passed Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) Examination from Poona University. For a year thereafter, the petitioner worked in a private firm. On 24th October, 1970, the petitioner was appointed as an Overseer by the Municipal Corporation of the City of Sholapur, the 1st respondent herein, which post was equated with the post of Junior Engineer. For a period of 3 years from 1973, the petitioner worked as Land and Estate Officer of the 1st respondent. For about four years from 1981, the petitioner hold charge as Assistant Engineer in various departments of the 1st respondent. The petitioner has received due increments and promotions from the time of his appointment as Overseer with the 1st respondent in the year 1969.3. By its adverti...
Menka Textiles Inds. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1995
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT370Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the appli- cants' appeals on merits, the firm is required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,44,84,204/- towards duty and a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs. An individual penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs has been imposed on the Managing Partner Shri Ramkumar Kapur. Their plant and machinery have been ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 10 lakhs, (vide Order-in-Original No. 19 of 1995 dated 9-5-1995).2. Shri Iyer, the ld. Advocate, appearing for the applicants, pleads that they are job workers bringing polyester filament yarn for texturising. They had a Central Excise Licence, which the Department advised to surrender, because the texturised yarn was exempted, if made out of duty-paid yarn. They were also getting imported POY under DEEC scheme and they were under the bona fide belief that they would be continued to be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 178/83 and clearing such texturised yarn made out of duty-paid yarn including yarn cleared under DEEC...
Shastri Sales Corporation and Others Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ449; [1998]229ITR628(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. By this criminal revision application filed under section 397, Criminal Procedure Code, read with section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the applicants are seeking to challenge the correctness of the order dated March 1, 1995, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, and it is further prayed that proceedings in Criminal Case No. 916 of 1988 pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, be quashed and set aside. 2. The facts giving rise to this criminal revision application are not disputed. Petitioner No. 1, Shastri Sales Corporation, Maskasath Itwari, Nagpur, is a partnership firm, and petitioner No. 2, Himmatlal, S/o. Udhavji Chandarana, and petitioner No. 3, Smt. Jasmatiben, W/o. Jitendra Chandarana, are the partners of the said firm. Petitioner No. 1, Shastri Sales Corporation (for short 'assessee') is also an income-tax assessee and for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the assessing authority found that the assessee ha...
Vijay Narayandas Rizwani Vs. Dilip @ Dhanraj S/O Navalrai Rizwani and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR322
A.D. Mane, J.1. This is an application under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings in R.C.C. No. 584 of 1991.2. Respondent No. 1 is the cousin brother of the petitioner. The petitioner holds a wholesale country liquor licence. In the year 1991-92 the petitioner applied for renewal of the licence. It was incumbent on the petitioner to say on affidavit that he paid all the taxes such as Income-tax, Sales tax and other taxes. The petitioner filed his affidavit on 6th March, 1991.3. On 10-9-1991 the respondent No. 1, however, filed his private complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, inter alia stating that the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, State Excise Department, Bombay, contains false statements and as such he committed offences punishable under sections 181, 199 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, issued process under section 420 of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »