Mumbai Court March 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.
Baban Sudam Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR182; 1997BomCR(Cri)238; 1996CriLJ2668
ORDER1. In this petition, the petitioner challenges Annexure A order as well as Annexure - B Notice. These notice and order were rendered under Section 56(1)(a)(b) and Section 59 respectively of the Bombay Police Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Qazi, has submitted that this notice and order are not sustainable in the eye of law, for this order is beyond the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Police who rendered it and according to the learned counsel if the order is given effect to, as it now stands, the very section, i.e. Section 56(1)(a)(b) on the basis of which the order is rendered would become opposed to Art. 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution of India. The next point urged by the learned counsel is, though there is allegation in the notice as well as a statement in the impugned order to the effect that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner out of fear, it is not established that summons to the witnesses has ever be...
Goa Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of C.Ex., Panaji, G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(90)ELT48(Bom)
P.S. Patankar, J. 1. Rule. The learned Advocate for the Respondents waives service. By consent heard forthwith. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the stay application filed by the petitioner by passing the Order dated 4-1-1996. The question is the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs. 23,96,932.14 under Order dated 23-3-1995 passed by Asstt. Collector of Central Excise (Div.) Panaji, Goa under S. 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the same and also filed an application for stay. The application for stay came to be rejected by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay by passing the Order dated 4-1-1996. 3. The issue that arises is whether the 'plastic crates' are to be treated as packaging material for availing of Modvat credit. It is the case of the Department that it is an 'equipment' falling under Rule 57A, Explanation (b)(i) of the Central Excises & Salt Rules, 1944 an...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mukesh Engg. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT119Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This Reference Application has been moved by the Revenue in respect of this Bench Order No. 1850-51/95-WRB, dated 11-10-1995 alleging that certain point of law has arisen, which calls for a reference to the High Court.2. In the aforesaid order passed by this Bench, it was held that the declaration made by the Respondents indicating 'gear box' classifiable under sub-heading 8483.00 would cover the inputs received under gate pass with description 'reduction gear' classified under the same sub-heading. The contention raised in the Reference Application reiterated by the ld. SDR is that 'gear box' and 'reduction gear' are different and 'reduction gear' cannot be said to be covered by the description 'gear box'. Only when the input is specifically covered by the description given in the declaration, Modvat credit can be extended. Hence a point of law has arisen on account of wrong appreciation of factual position. In this context, dictionary meaning in McGraw Hill was also cited.3. Afte...
Cadbury India Ltd. Vs. V.B. Save and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1262]
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. Rule in both Writ Petitions, returnable forthwith. Mr. Kochar, appearing for the 1st Respondent in Writ Petition No. 5946 of 1995, waives service on behalf off the 1st Respondent workman. Mr. Pavaskar, appearing for the 1st Respondent in Writ Petition No. 677 of 1996, waives service on behalf of the 1st Respondent employer. 2nd Respondent in both the Writ Petitions need not be served, being formal party. 2. By consent, Rule in both the Writ Petitions is called out and heard finally. 3. These two Writ Petitions are cross writ Petitions impugning the same Award (Part II) of the 2nd Labour Court, Thane, dated 30th August 1995 made in Reference (IDA) No. 24 of 1988. 4. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5946 of 1995 is the employer and the 1st Respondent therein is the workman. They shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'employer' and the 'workmen' respectively. 5. The workmen was dismissed by the employer after serving upon him a charge sheet dated 6th December 19...
Tulsidas Krishna Bandkar Vs. Board of Trustees of Bombay Port Trust an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR124
G.R. Majithia, J.1. The petitioner, Tulsidas Krishna Bandkar, has challenged the Award dated January 12, 1994 made in Reference No. CGIT-28 of 1991, by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Bombay, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated August 29, 1989. On a petition submitted by him for making a reference under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Central Government on March 27, 1991 referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.'Whether the management of Bombay Port Trust, Bombay, were justified in dismissing from service Shri T.K. Bandkar, Riveting Mazdoor in Chief Mechanical Engineer Office for a mere loss of photo Identity Card? If not, to what relief is the workmen entitled to.On receipt of the reference, the Industrial Tribunal issued notice to the parties. Statement of claim was filed by the Secretary, B.P.T. Employees U...
Smt. Laxmi P. Malgaonkar and ors. Vs. Smt. Ana Claudina P. Vaz, Deceas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR235
R.K. Batta, J. 1. The plaintiffs (respondents Nos. 1(a) to 1(f) in this revision) are owners of suit shop and the original defendant Prabhakar Tukaram Malgaonkar was the lessee of the said shop. The petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are the legal heirs of the original defendant Prabhakar Tukaram Malgaonkar. The original defendant had replaced the roof of the suit shop which consisted of Mangalore tiles, by replacing the same with asbestos sheets without having recourse to section 33 of The Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and for damages. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, after hearing the parties, on injunction, granted mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove asbestos sheets and to replace them by Mangalore tiles. The legal heirs of the defendant filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal before the District Judge, Margao and the Appeal was dismissed. The leg...
Samba Trading and Investment (P.) Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)58ITD360(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order under section 263 dated 29-3-1993 for the assessment year 1989-90. The assessee-company dealt in shares and also speculation in shares. It disclosed a profit of Rs. 4,84,649 in these share dealings and a loss of Rs. 8,50,004 in speculation of shares. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment setting off speculation loss of Rs. 8,50,004 against the trading profit of Rs. 4,84,649. The Commissioner objected to this course of action and issued a notice under section 263.2. Before the Commissioner it was explained that as per the Explanation to section 73 of the Income-tax Act, the assessee-company shall be deemed to be carrying on the speculation loss loss of Rs. 8,50,004 against the trading profit of Rs. 4,84,649 which under the Explanation to section 73 has to be regarded as speculation profit. The Commissioner did not agree with this contention. According to him, the Explanation to section 73 is only of a clarificatory nature and only l...
Narayan Pandhari Bhalshankar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR592; 1996CriLJ2174
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23-6-1993 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 489 of 1992, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us. Appeal with the appellant his nephew Ramesh Mohan Bhalshankar was also tried and prosecuted under Sections 302 read with 34, I.P.C., but he has been acquitted vide the impugned judgment. The State of Maharashtra has not preferred any appeal challenging his acquittal. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant is the real uncle (father's brother) of acquitted accused Ramesh Mohan Bhalshankar. The deceased Bhamabai was the wife of acquitted accused Ramesh. About 1 1/2 months prior to the incident a quarrel took place between acquitted accused Ramesh and the appellant. During the course of the same the latter assaulted the former with an iron bar resulting in the leg of the former getting fractured. It ap...
Marashtra General Kamgar Union, Bombay Vs. Universal Dyeing and Printi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1097Bom; 1996(1)MhLj505
G.R. Mmymia, J.1. The petitioner, Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, has challenged the order of the Industrial Court dated November 4, IW2, passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 1659 of 1990, in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India : 2. Tle factual matrix is as under : Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter 'the Respondent') at the relevant time, employed about 130 workmen. Some of these workmen were retrenched with effect from July 26, 1984 and some with effect from July 30, 1984. These workmen challenged the action of the respondent in applications under Sections 78 and 79 read with Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The contention of the 1 workmen in substance was that the termination was illegal whereas the respondent's contention was that the retrenchment was made after complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also contended by the respondent that the worKKen did not issue to ft approach notice before ...
Saraswat Co-op. Bank Employees Union Vs. V. State of Maharashtra and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR122; [1996(74)FLR1945]; (1997)ILLJ232Bom; 1996(2)MhLj10
Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. The petitioner is a trade union registered under the provision of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (Act No XVI of 1926), hereinafter called 'the Act'. Under Section 28 of the act, the petitioner is required to submit the annual returns for the period January 1 to December 31 in Form-I before April 30 of the following year. The returns for the year 1991 and 1992 could not be filed by the petitioner. A notice dated December 17, 1993 was sent by the Registrar of Trade Unions, first respondent herein, to the petitioner reminding the petitioner that they have not filed the returns and also calling for the explanation. It also stated that if the explanation is not filed within two months the registration of the Petitioner Union will be cancelled. The petitioner sent a reply to the first respondent on January 19, 1994 admitting the fault of the petitioner and also requested to grant one month's time for filing the returns. It also stated in that letter that their accounts...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »