Mumbai Court October 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.
Vijayshree Yeshwant Worlikar Vs. Maharukh Murad Oomrigar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC108
K.K. Baam, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/applicant seeking an order and direction that false, defamatory and scandalous statements and allegations made by the 1st respondent in Petition No. 7 of 1996 dated June 10, 1996, in the affidavit of the 1st respondent No. 1 in rejoinder dated July 19, 1996, in the affidavit in reply of the 1st respondent dated July 19,1996 in Petition No. 8 of 1996 in the Written Statement of the 1st respondent dated July 19,1996 (in P.M. Suit No. 38 of 1995) and in the affidavit in reply to the Petition No. 10 of 1995 be ordered to be expunged from the said pleadings and in order to seek these directions the applicant herein has prayed that pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Court be pleased to appoint a female Gynaecologist of repute to physically examine the petitioner/applicant and to place before this Hca'ble Court her certificate of her examination, in a cover to ascertain as to whether the petitioner/applica...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Atmaram J Vagela
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1996
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT400Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These are applications by the Deptt. for staying the operation of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai whereby he has allowed the appeal of the respondents herein holding that the consignment of watch parts in Liquid Crystal Display watch modules wth Button cells imported by post is in order and cannot be confiscated. He set aside the order of confiscation passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs which was impugned before him.2. Shri H.R. Krishnamurthi, the ld. DR submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not considering hte statements made by the respondent showing that the watch parts have been admittedly imported with a view to misdeclaring the value and also in violation of the ITC regualtions. He also contends that the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence could have intercepted the parcels because according to the ld. Dept. representative Section 25 Indian Post & Telegram Act, enables the DRI to make such an ...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd Vs. Rt. Hon. Sir Michael Karr and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR1
S. M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks directions to 1st respondent to file the Award dated 27th June, 1995, in this court together with depositions and documents taken on record by him. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The 2nd respondent is a company incorporated in accordance with the laws of Japan. The 1st respondent has acted as Umpire in the disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent which were referred to arbitration.3. By a contract dated 7th September, 1983 (for short, 'the Contract') entered by and between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent (for short, 'Sumitomo') agreed to install and commission on a turnkey basis, as Phase II of a Platform Complex at a site of the petitioner known as Bombay High South Offshore site about 100 miles North West of Bombay (for short, the SH Complex') one Well-cum-Production. Platform Deck, two Flare Tripods and Flare Bridges, ...
Sunil Alias Gotya Vishwanath Masurkar Vs. R.D. Tyagi, Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ633; 1997(3)MhLj78
Vishnu Sahai, J.By means of this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/detenu seeks to challenge the detention order dated 29th January 1996, passed by respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, in exercise of the powers vested in him by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, (No. 65 of 1980) read with Government Order, Home Department (Special) No. NSA 2395/1/SPL-3(B) dated 20th November 1995, detaining him under the National Security Act. 2. Since this petition can be disposed off on a purely legal ground on reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner, contained in the grounds of detention, bearing the same date as the detention order, which were served contemporaneously along with the detention order, on the petitioner on 29-1-1996, is called for. 3. The ground on which this petition, in the contention of Mr. U. N. Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner/detenu, is liable to succeed is...
Hasan Alam Beg Jamdar Vs. Sardari Bagum Usman Dabir and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR573
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. The plaintiff landlady filed Regular Civil Suit No. 20 of 1979 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Roha, against the defendant-tenant for possession of premises and arrears of rent. The suit premises were let out to the defendant-tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 30/- The defendant was in arrears for the period between 1-6-1976 and 31-3-1977 totalling to Rs. 300/-. A notice of demand was issued on 18-4-1977. According to the landlady, the defendant sent a reply dated 16-5-1977. The suit was filed on the ground that the defendant is a defaulter. The defendant resisted the suit by contending that the rent of Rs. 30/- is excessive and the standard rent should be fixed. In fact, the defendant contended that alongwith the reply to the notice, he had tendered all arrears amounting to Rs. 300/- to the learned Advocate for the plaintiff who issued the notice, but the learned Advocate accepted the reply but refused the amount of rent tendered. The defendant also ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Eknath Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR353
A.S.V. Moorthy, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 19 of 1983, on 10.6.1983, acquitting the respondent-accused of (he charge punishable under Sections 506, 366 and 376 IPC.2. The case of the prosecution can be briefly stated as follows:Indumati Sakhara (PW 3) an unmarried deal and dumb girl was admitted on 20.7.1983 in the Female Ward of TB Ward for treatment in the General Hospital. Solapur and she was kept in Room No. 1. The respondent-accused was working as a sweeper at the relevant time in the said ward. On the night of 30/31.7.1982, apart from PW 3, Indumati, there was only more patient in the room and that patient was an old lady. To the east of the room where Indumati was kept, there was a room known as Pantry room and further east, there is a verandah.It is the case of the prosecution that on the night of 30.7.1982, the respondent-accused approached Indumati and off...
Perfect Foundries Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR566
N.D. Vyas, J. 1. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of notice dated 8th March 1988 demand notice dated 21st April 1988 and the Trade Circular dated 14th July 1986 issued by the respondent No. 32. The short question which requires consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioners would be entitled to claim benefit of the Package Scheme of Incentives brought into force with effect from 1st August 1979 in respect of turnover tax and additional tax. Thus, the controversy revolves round the said scheme. 3. The petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of grey iron castings for automobiles and other industries. They set up an industrial unit for the manufacture of the said items at Solapur in 1982 and were granted registration as small scale unit issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Solapur. The petitioner No. 1 had inves...
Laxmibai Gangaram Bachal and anr. Vs. Yashwant Moreshwar Rajwade and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR83
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Hears learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree for eviction passed by Extra Assistant Judge, Satara on 18th July-1984 whereby the said court set-aside the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai and decreed Plaintiff's suit for eviction.3. During pendency of the writ petition, civil application has been filed by the legal representatives of original tenant that original Plaintiff landlord has sold property in question by registered sale deed dated 14.4.93 for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/-. The photostat copy of the sale deed has been placed on record.4. According to learned Counsel for the Petitioners, upon sale of the property in question, the original Plaintiff's need has come to an end.5. Mr. Abhyankar, learned Counsel for original Plaintiff-landlord does not dispute the correctness of this fact that property in question has been sold by original Plaintiff by way of registered sale de...
Ferro Galva Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT574Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of steel structures and parts thereof classifiable under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They are availing of Modvat credit facility on their inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The departmental officers verified their records for the period 1990-91 to 1992-93 and found that in their declaration under Rule 57G for Modvat purposes, the appellants had declared unwrought Zinc as one of their inputs. It is found that between 5-3-1991 to 30-8-1992, the appellants had received certain quantities of zinc ingots and took deemed credit thereof amounting to Rs. 99,898/-. The deemed Modvat credit is taken in pursuance of the order of the Government of India under Rule 57G, which is by way of exception to the requirement under the Modvat Rules that input duty credit can be taken only when such inputs are received under cover of document evidencing payment of duty. In respect of notified inputs, duty can be taken w...
B.J. Wahane and Another Vs. Kamlesh Gangaram Kanoje
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR303; 1998(1)BomCR563; (1998)1BOMLR486; 1997(2)MhLj158
ORDERB.U. Wahane, J.1. In this First Appeal, the appellants have challenged the findings recorded by the District Judge. Bhandara on 7-9-1993, in Misc. Judicial Case No. 47/92, arising out of Application No. 30/92 decided on 17-10-1992 by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, which arose out of the Judgment and Order dtd. 11-9-1992 passed by the Dy. Charity Commissioner, Bhandara in Change Report No. 8/92, accepting the same.2. The Loksewa Bahu-Uddeshiya Shaikshanik Sanstha came to be registered as a Public Trust having Registration No. F-356. A Change Report (Exh. 1) was filed by the reporting trustee-the respondent-Shri Kamlesh Kanoje, before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur. In the change report, the appellant No. 1- Shri B.J. Wahane is shown as a President and Mr. Kamlesh Gangaram Kanoje (respondent) as a Secretary. It was contended in the application that Shri B.J. Wahane resigned from the Secretaryship and his resignation was accepted in the meeting dtd. 26-2-1978 of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »