Mumbai Court December 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.
Smt. Satinder Anand Alias Sweety Vs. Mahanager Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR430
A.P. Shah, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is claiming the following reliefs against the respondent Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) (i) to issue a declaration that the disconnection of the petitioner's telephone connection bearing No. 6048212 is illegal, unconstitutional and void, (b) to issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the notice dated 5th August, 1996 issued by the respondent MTNL, (c) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent MTNL to withdraw the notice dated 5th August, 1996 and lastly (d) to direct the respondent MTNL not to demand or recover the alleged unpaid dues of the deceased husband of the petitioner.3. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner is widow of one Siddharth Anand. The petitioner is the subscriber in her own name of a telephone connection allotted to her on 30th June, 1994 bearing telephone No. 6048212. The ...
Union Bank of India Vs. Noor Dairy Fram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR126
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is a suit filed by Union Bank of India against the defendants for recovery of money. The defendants have filed written statement. Issues have been framed. One witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff and plaintiff's case was closed. One witness was examined on behalf of the defendants. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both sides.2. The plaintiff's case is as follows :---The Union Bank of India, which is a Nationalised Bank. The first defendant is a partnership firm. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who are father and son are the partners of the first defendant firm. It is stated that the defendants had obtained term loan facility since 1975 to the extent of Rs. 65,000/-. The defendants have executed a promissory note dated 10th April, 1978 and Hypothecation Agreement of the same date. The defendants have availed that facility. The amount lent to the defendants on different dates have been debited to their accounts. It is further stated that at th...
Dr. Suresh Madhukar Nagarkar Vs. Ujubala Madhav Desai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR98; 1997(4)BomCR250
V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9th December, 1987, passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay in S.C. Suit No. 6958 of 1972. 2. Gist facts of the suit are that, the plaintiff Dr. Madhav Dattatraya Desai (Dead) was a General Medical Practitioner running a dispensary in the name and style of National Medical Hall at Shop No. 1. Bai Panabai Gangji Building, Ground floor, Lalbag, Bombay-12. The plaintiff was a monthly tenant of the said premises. The appellant-defendant Dr. Suresh Madhukar Nagarkar is a qualified Dental Surgeon. It is the case of the plaintiff that Dr. Madhav Desai and Dr. Suresh Nagarkar, defendant-appellant entered into an agreement of leave and licence on 18th November, 1968. Under the agreement,, the appellant-defendant was allowed to use a small portion of premises on leave and licence basis. The royalty or licence fee was fixed at Rs. 380/- p.m., payable on 10th day of each succeeding month. In the agreement, the terms ...
Radheshyam S/O Mangalchand Agrawal Vs. Mangalchand S/O Badriprasad Agr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR303
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 1. The original plaintiff Radheshyam s/o Mangalchand Agrawal has filed this civil revision application challenging the appellate order by which the Appellate Court has allowed the Misc. Civil Appeal filed by the original defendant Nos. 1 & 2, Mangalchand Badriprasad Agrawal and Shakuntalabai w/o Mangalchand Agrawal respectively, against the order passed by the trial Court granting an injunction in favour of the present petitioner/original plaintiff. By the said injunction two detrainments were issued by the trial Court. First was that the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. Mangalchand and Shakuntalabai were restrained from taking anybody else, and more particularly the respondent No. 4 Kamalkishor, by way of adoption. The second restrainment was in respect of possession of the disputed property i.e. a godown. Facts are rather interesting.The present petitioner claims to be an adopted son of the respondents 1 and 2 and ...
Arun S/o Punjabrao Ghanvate and Ors. Vs. Hon'ble Chancellor Amravati U ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR658; (1997)99BOMLR101
S. Radhakrishan, J.1. In all the above three Petitions, the common question involved is the challenge to the decision of the Chancellor of Amravati University dated 1.10.1996, setting aside the elections of the Heads of Departments to the Board of Studies held by the Amravati University on 12.2.1995 and directing the Vice-Chancellor to hold the elections afresh. There is also a challenge to the consequential notification dated 8.10.1996, issued by the Amravati University in pursuance of the above directives of the Chancellor, whereby the membership acquired by the elected Heads of Departments under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 37 of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, on the respective Boards of studies shall stand ceased. The aforesaid consequential notification dated 6.10.96, also made it clear that those who had acquired memberships on the other Authorities of the University, by virtue of being member of Board of Studies also stood cancelled.2. The main grounds of challe...
Three M Paper Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1996
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT226Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether power driven pumps used by the assessee in the manufacture of paper, "capital goods" and Modvat credit could be taken on the duty paid on them. The Assistant Commissioner had accepted the assessee's claim. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the pumps are not capital goods because they do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 57Q, that they must be used for producing or processing any goods or for bringing about any change or substance for the manufacture of the final product.2. The advocate for the appellant explained that the pumps were used at various places in the plant to lift and to carry pulp, from which the paper is made from one machine to another during various processes in the course of manufacture. He contends that for them to be considered capital goods, it is not necessary that the pumps themselves be used for the purposes specified in the rule. He relies upon this Tribunal's decision in C.C.E. v. ...
Vinod Ramchandra Gosalka Vs. Sunil Dattatray Tatkare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR110
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. These are four Election Petitions filed by the respective petitioners challenging the election of returned candidates. In all these cases the respective respondents have taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Election Petition on the ground that true copy of the petition is not served on the respondent. In Election Petition No. 7/95 Chamber Summons No. 1205/96 and in Election Petition No. 8/95 Chamber Summons No. 106/96 are taken out raising preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable. In Election Petition No. 11/95 a precipe is filed stating that the respondent is taking identical preliminary objection as in Chamber Summons No. 1205/96 filed in E.P. No. 7/95. In Election Petition No. 10/95 the respondent has filed an application dated 3-12-1996 stating that the petition is not maintainable. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in all the four cases. I have heard the learned Counsels for the petiti...
Ravindra Lalbachan Tiwari and ors. Vs. Smt. Nirmaladevi Vijaynarayan D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR75
V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8th January, 1996 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay, in Short Cause Suit No. 7262 of 1985. 2. Short facts emerge from the record are that the suit was filed against the appellants-defendants by respondent No. 1 - plaintiff No. 2 and the other plaintiff No. 1 for declaration and possession of the suit flour mill viz., Ambika Flour Mill situated at Daulatnagar, Borivli. The plaintiffs are the heirs of deceased Ambika Krishnanand Pandey. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Ambika Krishnanand Pandey, who was originally a native of U.P., came to Bombay in 1948-50 and started serving in Kamla Mills, Lower Parel. His nephews i.e. sons of his brother Chandrika also came later to Bombay and they got employment through their uncle Ambika Krishnanand Pandey. They were staying with said uncle Krishnanand and all the income of their earnings were being given to Ambika Krishnanand Pandey and he was looking afte...
Ravindra Baburao Sutar Vs. Sou. Manisha Ravindra Sutar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC517
D.K. Trivedi, J.1. Leave to amend granted.2. Petitioner husband has filed this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for transfer of the petition being Marriage Petition No. 136 of 1995 filed by respondent wife for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Satara to be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Alibag and the same be heard with Hindu Marriage Petition No. 17 of 1995 filed by the petitioner on several grounds.3. At reflected from the petition that the marriage of the petitioner with the opponent had taken place on 27th April, 1994 and as relation between them were strained, petitioner husband has instituted a proceeding by filing petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag, District Raigad and prayed for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said petition was filed by the husband in the sa...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Prockage Soapery Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT700Tri(Mum.)bai
1. By this appeal, the Department seeks to set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in which he has held that Modvat credit of duty paid on soap noodles cannot be denied only on the ground that they were used in the manufacture of Sunlight soap whereas what was declared in the Mod-vat declaration was Sunlight soap.2. The Departmental representative contends that the two soaps are different in that one is a toilet soap, whereas the other is soap used to wash clothes.3. I do not see how this makes a difference as the Collector points out, both the products are covered by the same Tariff heading. The fact that the two brands of soaps may have different ingredients is not relevant as long as there is no dispute that the noodles were used in the manufacture of lifebuoy soap, credit could not be denied and there is no dispute about it. I decline to interfere....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »