Mumbai Court January 1996 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.
Raghunath G. Raheja Vs. the Maharashtra Medical Council and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom198; 1996(3)BomCR214
ORDERA. V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned counsel.2. The petitioner Raghunath Raheja seeks to challenge the resolution passed by the first respondent Maharashtra Medical Council exonerating the two medical practitioners respondents Nos. 3 and 4 of the charge of negligence in attending to his wife Mrs. Bhagwati. The petitioner is also seeking certain general directions against the Maharashtra Medical Council. The petitioner's wife was admitted to the Dr. Balobhai Nanavati Hospital, Vile Parle, Bombay (for short, 'Nanavati Hospital') on 18th October 1989. She had complained of a heart ailment viz., 'acute left ventricular failure' and 'diabetes mellitus' and after necessary treatment she was discharged on 27th October 1989. She was re-admitted in the said Hospital on 22nd November 1989 and was referred to the third respondent Dr. Pahla-jani, who is a cardiologist and in consultation with the fourth respondent Dr. Sharad Pande, who is a heart surgeon, it was decided to operate upon he...
R.S. Landge and ors. Vs. Sunpra Energy and Recovery Engineering Pvt. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ1136Bom
A.P. Shah J. 1. Rule. 2. Mr. Nargolkar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 waives service. By consent the petition in taken up for hearing. 3. This petition arises under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against a common judgment passed by the Industrial Court, Pune, on the five separate revision applications filed by the respondent No. 1. 4. The respondent No. 1 is a private limited company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its factory at Ambervet in district of Pune. The petitioners were employed as security watchmen in the factory of respondent No. 1 which is running in all three shifts. The first shift starts from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., the second shift from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. and the 3rd shift from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. On September 11, 1992 at about 2 p.m. one Shri Ghatge and one Shri Mhaske who are the engineer and the manager of the respondent No. 1, visited the factory and they found that the gate of the factory was o...
Kishor Jitendra Dalal Vs. Jaydeep Investments and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom254; (1996)98BOMLR82; [1997]89CompCas513(Bom)
ORDER1. By this petition the petitioner seeks declaration that the arbitration -- proceedings in case No. 45 of 1991 pending before respondents 2 and 3,the Arbitrators, have become null and void since time for the Arbitrators to make the award has expired and the petitioner has declined to give his consent of enlargement of time for the Arbitrators to make the award.2.The petitioner has been a member of The Stock Exchange, Bombay (for short, 'the Exchange') However, the membership of the petitioners is presently suspended by the Governing Board of the Exchange Prior of suspension of the membership of the petitioners the 1st respondents had effected transactions in shares thought the petitioners at the Exchange is accordance with Rues Bye- laws and Regulations of the Exchange. In respect of the such transactions, certain disputes and such transactions, certain disputes and differences arose by and between the 1st respondents and the petitioner which the 1st respondents referred to arbit...
Kishor Jitendra Dalal Vs. Jaydeep Investment and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR204
Arbitration - arbitration proceedings - Section 28 of Arbitration Act - dispute arose between petitioner and respondent - matter referred to arbitration as per agreement between parties - meanwhile petition filed for declaration that pending arbitration proceedings have become null and void - petitioner alleged that time for arbitrators to make award expired and he declined to give his consent for enlargement of time - Bye-laws of Exchange were Statutory Rules - Bye-laws 254 and 261 shall prevail over Section 28 (2) - Governing Board or President of Exchange has power to enlarge time for arbitrators to make award despite there being not consent of party or parties to agreement under Bye-laws 254 and 261 - time for making award by arbitrators enlarged by concerned authorities - arbitrators neither become functus officio nor have ceased to have jurisdiction to arbitrate in matter - held, proceedings before arbitrators have not become null and void....
Dinkar Deoram Kamble Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR1; 1997BomCR(Cri)62
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Although this appeal is not on final hearing board and the bail application is only on board but, since the counsel for the parties do not object to my finally deciding it, I propose doing so; especially because the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is 6 months R.I. and he has already been in jail for nearly 1 month. In addition, I find that the paper book is ready; is attached to the bail application; and the record and proceedings have been received by this Court.2. The appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 8-7-1992, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nasik in Sessions Case No. 101 of 1992, convicting and sentencing him to undergo 6 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo S.I. for one month, under section 324 I.P.C. has come in appeal before me.3. Along with the appellant his wife Mangala Dinkar Kamble was also tried but, she was acquitted by the impugned judgment.4. The prosecution c...
Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT149Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though this day only stay applications were listed for hearing, after hearing both the sides, since the matter calls for a remand back to the adjudicating authority, we have, with the consent of both the sides, taken up the appeals themselves for disposal, granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts.2. Both the appeals are directed against the common Order-in-Original No 44 & 45 of 1995 (F. No.V-Adj (52)15-5/95, dated 15-11-1995 passed by the Commissioner II Central Excise, Bombay-I disposing of two show cause notices.3. The issue relates to denial of Modvat credit taken on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. BPRL Assam and M/s. India Polyfibres Ltd., U.P.Inputs have been received from the aforesaid manufacturers after their transfer to their godown. Subsequently invoices were issued to their own dealers but the consignments are reported to have come directly to the appellants al-ongwith the invoices, on the basis of which Modvat credit has been taken, but the d...
Satish Solvant Extractions Private Limited Vs. the New India Assurance ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom293; 1996(2)BomCR695; (1996)98BOMLR968
ORDERB. P. SARAF, J.1. The controversy in this appeal pertains to the scope and ambit of the power of the Court to grant pendente lite interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ('CPC'). The appellant had filed a suit against the respondent-insurance company for recovery of a sum of Rupees 51,500/- by way of damages on account of destruction of its boiler house by fire. The boiler house, which has been destroyed by fire in 8th Sept. 1982 was insured with the respondents-insurance company for Rupees 54,000/-. The appellant lodged a claim with the respondent-insurance company for a sum of Rs. 51,500/- -- Rs. 50,000/- on account of destruction of the boiler house by fire and Rs. 1,500/- by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred by it in extinguishing the fire. The claim was not accepted by the respondent-insurance company who estimated the loss at Rs. 18,400/- only and offered to pay the said amount to the appellant in full and final settlement of its claim. The appe...
ibrahim Alias Munna Salim Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1419
ORDER1. Heard Mr. K. M. Sangani for the applicant and Mrs. S. G. Pingulkar App for State. 2. This is an application for bail in a case under Section 395 I.P.C. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the dacoity in question took place on 26th January 1986 and that although the applicant is in jail since 3rd September 1986 his trial has not yet commenced. In other words in spite of the fact that the applicant has been in jail for over 9 years and 4 months his trial has not commenced. This indeed is a shocking state of affairs and a shameful reflection on our judicial system. 3. This inordinate delay in the commencement of the trial of the applicant by itself is a sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail in view of the mandate contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of the India provides that 'no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.' 4. The e...
Satish Solvent Extractions Private Limited Vs. New India Assurance Co. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: 2(1996)ACC422
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. The controversy in this appeal pertains to the scope and ambit of the power of the Court to grant pendente lite interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'). The appellant had filed a suit against the respondent-Insurance Company for recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,500/- by way of damages on account of destruction of its boiler house by fire. The boiler house, which had been destroyed by fire on 8th September, 1982 was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company for Rs. 54,000/-. The appellant lodged a claim with the respondent-Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 51,500/-, Rs. 50,000/- on account of destruction of the boiler house by fire and Rs. 1,500/- by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred by it in extinguishing the fire. This claim was not accepted by the respondent-Insurance Company who estimated the loss at Rs. 18,400/- only and offered to pay the said amount to the appellant in full and final settlement of its claim. The appellan...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri and So ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)58ITD197(Mum.)
1. These two appeals by the Revenue are against the orders of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) and under s. 273 pertaining to asst. yr. 1982-83.Assessee is one of the leading jewellers of Bombay. It filed its return of income on 15th June, 1982, declaring its income at Rs. 5,63,910. On 21st Sept., 1982, a search was conducted at the premises of the assessee. A petition under s. 273A was filed by the assessee before the CIT on 27th Jan., 1983, offering Rs. 20 lakhs for taxation purposes with a view to avoid further inquiries and investigations and to buy peace. This petition related to asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1982-83. This offer was increased gradually to Rs. 30 lakhs and later on further increased to Rs. 52 lakhs plus vide letter dt. 22nd Sept., 1984. This offer was not accepted by the Department. In the meanwhile assessee filed a settlement petition before the Settlement Commission on 31st Oct., 1983, pertaining to asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1983-84. The said petition wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »