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.
Anjana Balasaheb Jadhav and anr. Vs. Sayed Babu Sayed Khaja Peer and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ90
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. This first appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 10.1.1989, passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pune, in Application No. 159 of 1982. By the said award, the trial court has directed respondent No. 3, original respondent No. 3, jointly and severally with opponent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs. 1,44,750 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till actual realisation along with proportionate costs. Being dissatisfied by the award granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pune, the present appellants-original claimants have preferred this first appeal for enhancement of the compensation by an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Few facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:Appellant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased Balasaheb Ganpat Jadhav and appellant No. 2 is the minor son of the said deceased. The deceased succumbed to injuries in a motor accident at Kastur Chowk, P...
The Jayabharat Credit Limited Vs. Jalgaon Re-rolling Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR94; (1997)99BOMLR521
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The question that has to be decided in this Company Petition is as to whether it deserves to be admitted or not. Since the admission of the petition for winding up of the Company is followed by the devastating results in terms of reputation of the Company, the matter was heard extensively on the question of admission itself.2. The petitioner Company is itself a registered company. It is essentially a Financial Company. It was previously known as 'The Jayabharat Credit and Investment Co. Ltd. However, the name was changed to 'Jayabharat Credit Ltd.'. The company, which is sought to be wound up is Jalgaon Re-rolling Industries Ltd., which has its Registered Office at Nagpur and it has been incorporated and registered on 30.10.1964. The said Company approached the petitioner by letter dated 18.3.1983 and made a proposal for obtaining material handling equipment under the leasing scheme of the petitioner. The said proposal was accepted by the petitioner and, the petiti...
K.R. Choksey and Company Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT566Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These 2 appeals and 2 stay applications are filed by the same appellants and were taken up together for disposal. After hearing the preliminary submissions, we felt that the main appeals could be taken up for disposal. Since both sides agreed, the 2 main appeals are being decided together.2. The appellants are stock brokers collecting brokerage on each sale or purchase made by them on behalf of their clients. With effect from 4-7-1994, Service Tax of 5% was imposed on the brokerage. The Rules relating to the levy and collection of service tax provided for filing of returns and for assessment by the proper officer. The assessee filed one return for the period July, 1994 to Sept., 1994 and another return for the period Oct., 1994 to Dec., 1994. The assessing officer calculated the tax leviable on the value of the taxable service shown in Col. 3 of the periodical returns and came to the conclusion that the service tax deposited by the appellants was less than the tax calculated by him...
United States Lines Agency Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT602Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The four containers containing textiles, wrist watches, and other goods valued at Rs. 69.85 lacs CIF were seized by the Customs on the ground that these were to be smuggled into India, and were not covered by the value import licence. After investigation, notice issued for various persons purported to be concerned in the importation. Among these, is the present appellant, which is the steamer agent of the line to which the vessel "Jumna Pioneer", which carry the goods, belonged.The Commissioner, after usual proceedings passed an order. We are presently only concerned with this order confiscating the four containers which the Collector found to have been used for conveying and packing of the contraband, and permitting it to be redeemed by the appellant on payment of fine against this portion of the order that the steamer agent as filed this appeal.2. The Collector, in the order impugned in the appeal has ordered confiscation of the containers under Sections 118 & 119 of the Act....
Jayant Madhav Chitale Vs. Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom126; (1996)98BOMLR715
ORDER1. Both these writ petitions arise out of order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune on 12-8-1996. 2. Heard Mr. C. R. Dalvi, the learned counsel for petitioner in both the writ petitions. 3. Mr. Dalvi has raised two fold contentions :-- (i) that since Shri J. M. Chitale, Advocate, was appearing on behalf of the plaintiff to argue application Exhibit-5 having been engaged by Shri M. M. Mokashi, Advocate, who was duly appointed to act in the Court on behalf of the plaintiff and therefore no Vakalatnama or memo of appearance or authority was required to be filed by Shri J. M. Chitale, Advocate, and (ii) that there was no justification by the Court below in directing Shri Chitale, Advocate, to produce his sanad since the same lawyer has been appearing in the Court in Pune for more than 25 years.4. I have considered the contentions raised by Mr. Dalvi and also perused the order dated 12-8-96 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune along with other material placed on re...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gajanan S/O Rambhau Mohite
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR73
B.U. Wahane, J.1. In all the appeals preferred by the appellant-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. challenged the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the question involved or raised being the same, the appeals with the consent of the learned Counsel of the parties, are disposed of by the common judgment. However two different vehicles met with an accident on two different, dates and the owners and drivers being different the appeals have been separated in two groups. In First Appeal Nos. 388/93 to 391 /93 and 393 to 396, the tractor No. MHX 5049 and Trolly No. MHV 3503 are involved in the accident occurred on 25/5/1991 and though the claimants are different, the owner respondent No. 2 - Bhimrao Mahaduji Nikam, is the same.2. The second group of the First Appeals is of First Appeal Nos. 626 to 626 and 631 to 635 and 713 of 1993. In this set of appeals. Truck No. MTR 5888 and Trolly No. 9391 are involved. The accident occurred on 5/3/1990 and the recorded owner of the vehic...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gajanan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: 1(1998)ACC101
B.U. Wahane, J.1. In all the appeals preferred by the appellant-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. challenged the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and the question involved or raised being the same, the appeals with the consent of the learned Counsel of the parties, are disposed of by the common judgment. However, two different vehicles met with an accident on two different dates and the owners and drivers being different, the appeals have been separated in two groups. In First Appeal Nos. 388/93 to 391/93 and 393 to 396, the tractor No. MHX 5049 and Trolly No. MHV 3503 are involved in the accident occurred on 25.5.1991 and though the claimants are different, the owner respondent No. 2-Bhimrao Mahaduji Nikam, is the same.The second group of the first appeals is of First Appeal Nos. 626 to 629 and 631 to 635 and 713 of 1993. In this set of appeals, Truck No. MTR 5888 and Trolly No. 9391 are involved. The accident occurred on 5.3.1990 and the recorded owner of the vehicle is...
Barrister Prasad Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR343]; (1998)IIILLJ913Bom
D.P. Saraf and D.G. Deshpande, JJ. 1. These two appeals arise out of common order passed by the Learned Judge on September 29, 1994. This common order was given by the Learned Single Judge in two Writ Petitions, one of which was filed by the Employer-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., vide Writ Petition No. 3613 of 1991, and the other petition was filed by Barrister Prasad, the employee, vide Writ Petition No. 3669 of 1991.2. Both the above mentioned Writ Petitions came to be filed before the Learned Single Judge, in the background of following circumstances :The Barrister Prasad, hereinafter called the employee, was employed by B.P.C.L. (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) hereinafter called as the Employer, as a security watchman in their installation in Bombay. The employee was Ex. Military-man. He was employed on November 13, 1980. He was on night duty (night duty-3rd shift), on June 8, 1981. The Dy. Manager, Operations, Sewree, issued a charge-sheet against him, dated August 20, 19...
Kashinath @ Kashya Tukaram Lad Vs. R.D. Tyagi, Commissioner of Police ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)768
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this petition referred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/detenu has impugned the detention order dated 19th January 1996 passed by respondent No. 1 by virtue of the powers vested in him under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, read with Government Order Home Department, (Special) No. N.S.A. 2395/1/SPL-3(B) dated 20th November 1995, detaining him under the National Security Act.2. Prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance of the detention order are contained in the grounds of detention bearing the same date as the order of detention. Both the order of detention and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 20-1-1996.Briefly stated the grounds read thus :-Criminal record of the petitioner shows that he has taken to a life of crime and has formed his own gang. Alongwith members of his gang he has been indulging in terrorising activities resulting in his becoming a potentia...
Mr. Afsar Shaikh Vs. Mr. P.N. Kaul and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR456
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Competent Authority, Pune Division, Pune by its order dated 14-3-89 in M.A. No. 27 of 1988, P.N. Kaul and another v. Afsar Sheikh, allowed the application for eviction filed under section 13A(2) of Bombay Rent Control Act, and, held that the applicants were entitled to recover possession of the premises in question and ordered the eviction of the occupant-petitioner herein. The Competent Authority also directed the occupant to pay damages at double the rate of licence fee or charge of the premises fixed under the agreement of licence with effect from 1-7-1986. This order passed by the Competent Authority is under challenge in this Civil Revision Application. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 herein Mrs. Raj Dulari Ganju (for short, 'licensor') and her caretaker made an application for eviction under section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, 'Rent Control Act') against the petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »