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.
Black Sea Shipping Company Vs. Transocean Shipping Agency Private Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR94
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to have the Judgment pronounced and Decree passed in terms of the Award under the provisions of section 6 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition & Enforcement) Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act).2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to controversy, are as under :(a) While the petitioners were a part and parcel and/or division of one Messrs. Sovfract, which was wholly owned by the erstwhile Government of Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (U.S.S.R.), engaged the 1st respondents as their agents for the purpose of petitioners' business of transport and/or carriage of the goods from Indian Port to the other ports all over the world and vice versa. The appointment and/or engagement of the agency of the 1st respondents was done by and under several agreements executed in writing. The 1st respondents while acting as shipping agents of the petitioners in India collected freight from the shippers and/or hirers and/or consignors who utilise...
Mohammed Sharif Mohd. Shafi Vs. Madni Masji Trust and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR355
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule, Returnable forthwith. Mr. Mulla waives service for the respondent.2. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the order dated 28.6.96 passed by the Additional District Judge, Malegaon, refusing to condone the delay in preferring appeal against the decree dated 20.7.1994 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malegaon in Regular Civil Suit No. 38/91.3. In suit for recovery of possession of Room in city survey No. 808 Navapura, Malegaon and for mesne profits an application was filed by the respondents herein (for short, original plaintiffs) against the present petitioner (for short original defendant) in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Malegaon on 25.1.1991. The original defendant was served in the said suit and he appeared before the trial Court on 21.7.1991. Admittedly, no written statement was filed by the original defendant and ultimately on 28.7.1991 ex-parte decree came to be passed against the original defendant. It is common ground...
Corn Products Company (India) Limited Vs. Ayaz Ghadiya and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom331; 1997(3)ALLMR91; 1997(3)BomCR83; (1996)98BOMLR902; 1997(2)MhLj83
ORDER1. By this Petition, the Petitioners seek declaration that there is no valid, binding or subsisting arbitration agreement between the Petition and the 1st Respondent and that the invocation of arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the Agreement Exhibits A and B to the petition is illegal, invalid, of no effect and not binding on the Petitioners. The Petitioners also seek declaration that the reference of the disputes and differences between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent to 2nd Respondent as sole arbitrator is invalid, void and of no effect and not binding on the petitioners. The Petitioners also seek the relief to have the reference to arbitration to the 2nd Respondent set aside. In the alternative, the Petitioners seek declaration that the appointment of the 2nd Respondent as sole arbitrator is invalid, illegal, of no effect and not binding on the Petitioners and the same be revoked and/or set aside.2. The petitioners are a company incorporated under...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Abdul Jakir Abdul Dubar Singh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR111
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this appeal preferred under section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the State of Maharashtra, the appellant, has impugned the judgment and order dated 14th January, 1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1981, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under section 326 read with 149 I.P.C., etc. As respondent No. 7 Mohamed Sajik Mohamed Hanif could not be served, vide order dated 26-2-90 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, the appeal against him has been separated.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :Since 7 to 8 years prior to the incident Aliraza Walimohamed P.W. 3, the father of the informant Safian Ahmed, was staying as a tenant in room No. 34 in Loheki Chawl, Madanpura, Bombay. About a year or two prior to the incident the respondents Nos. 2,3,4, and 6 i.e. Nasruddin Hafizulla Khan, Abdul Bari Abdul Rashid, Nasruddin Abdul Latif, and Habib Khan, and Mohamed Sajik...
ishwardas and Brothers Vs. Additional District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR91
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. In this petition, the tenants challenge the order passed by the reviewing authority as also the appellate authority granting permission to issue a quit notice.2. Initially, the Rent Controller had rejected the application made on behalf of respondent No. 2/landlady under the provisions of Clause 13(3)(i)(iii)(vi) and (vii) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Rent Control Order' for the sake of brevity). In the appeal, the appellate Court granted the permission under Clause 13(3)(i) and (iii) of the Rent Control Order, holding that the tenant had fallen in arrears of rent of more than three months and had sublet the premises. Two review applications came to be filed against this order - one by the landlady and another by the tenants. The tenants' review application was rejected, while the review application by the landlady was allowed and the finding of the appellate authority was confirmed and in addition to t...
Gosai W/O Rama Nurat Nisa Vs. Rampyare Shobran
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR224
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. When the matter is called out neither the petitioner nor his advocate is present. Similarly neither the respondent nor his advocate is present.2. Normally the matter would have been dismissed for default. However, these are old matters pending from 1983 and as such it would be in the interest of justice and expedient to dispose of the petition on merits.3. Accordingly I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the lower courts. The original plaintiff filed a suit being RAE suit No. 2349 of 1969 in the court of Small Causes at Bombay and contended that defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff in respect of one room in their chawl known as Laxmi Niwas, Patrachi Chawl, Jawahar Nagar, Khar, on a monthly rent of Rs. 15.80 which consisted of Rs. 13.80 as rent and Rs. 2/- as water charges. It was alleged that the defendant tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.11.1967 and by notice dated 16.8.1968, the tenancy was terminated and arrears were demanded. Copy of the no...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Moosa Haji Patrawala
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT588Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This reference application has been filed by the Revenue seeking a reference to be made to the High Court of Bombay on certain points of law arising out of this Bench's Final Order Nos. 44-45/96-WRB, dated 24-1-1996.2. In this case, M/s. Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt. Ltd. had taken Modvat credit on the basis of Gate Passes which were issued before 30-3-1994 but which were endorsed in their name at subsequent dates. The Department had maintained that such Gate Passes were not eligible documents in terms of Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994. The Tribunal observed that, in the impugned Notification, endorsed Gate Passes were also specified against Sr. No. 10 as authorised documents. The Tribunal observed that the facility to issue invoices which could be accepted as valid documents was given to the dealers only vide Notification 32/94, dated 4-7-1994. Therefore, a trader who had purchased the goods against a Gate Pass issued on or before 30-3-1994 could not have issued t...
Ramchandra D. Erande Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom129; 1997(2)BomCR418; 1997(1)MhLj86
ORDERVyas, J. 1. By the present writ petition, which is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ directing the respondents to pay pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980 ('the Scheme' for short). 2. The petitioner was born on 1st July, 1925 and at the relevant time was studying in the 6th standard in a school at Pune. He participated in the freedom movement in 1942 and as a result of an incident which took place in or about August, 1942 the petitioner was arrested. According to the petitioner, this happened on 11th August, 1942. However, the date of arrest in the records of the criminal prosecution has been shown as 27th September, 1942. The petitioner was charged for offence of breach of several rules of the Defence of India Rules and also under Ss. 147 and 149 of Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty of the offences and was convicted and ordered to suffer imprisonment for a maxim...
Prakashnarayan Shaktia Vs. Hotel Corporation of India Limited and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR147
S. M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to have the Award dated 29th August, 1992 filed in this Court and numbered as Award No. 114 of 1992 set aside and supersession of the arbitration agreement contained in agreement dated 12th April, 1989. 2. The petitioner has been in the employment of 1st Respondent and, at the material tunes, was working in the Engineering Department thereof. The 2nd Respondent was also in the employment of the 1st Respondent. One Raghavendra Kulkarni was working in th Engineering Department of the 1st Respondent where at the petitioner, at all material times, was also working. According to the petitioner, being in the same Department, the petitioner knew the said Raghavendra Kulkarni. The 2nd Respondent was a friend of the said Raghavendra Kulkarni. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that in or around the month of March, 1989, the Petitioner was informed by the said Raghavendra Kulkarni that the 2nd Respondent was selected by the 1st Re...
Prakashnarayan Shaktia Vs. Hotel Corporation of India Limited and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR1
ORDERS.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to have the Award dated 29th August, 1992 filed in this Court and numbered as Award No. 114 of 1992 set aside and supersession of the arbitration agreement contained in Agreement dated 12th April, 1989.2. The petitioner has been in the employment of 1st respondent and, at all material times, was working in the Engineering Department thereof. The 2nd respondentwas also in the employment of the 1st respondent. One Raghavendra Kulkarni wasworking in the Engineering Department of the 1st respondent whereat the petitioner,at all material times, was also working. According to the petitioner, being in the sameDepartment, the petitioner knew the said Raghavendra Kulkarni. The 2nd respondentwas a friend of the said Raghavendra Kulkarni.3. It is the case of the petitioner that in or around the month of March, 1989, thepetitioner was informed by the said Raghavendra Kulkarni that the 2nd respondentwas selected by the 1st respond...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »