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.
Pannalal S.S. Vs. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR74; (1996)98BOMLR218
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is an election petition filed by the petitioner challenging the election of the respondent Mr. Hitendra Thakur, who is a returned candidate from Vasai Constituency, Thane District, Maharashtra. Though there were earlier three more respondents, who were respondents 1, 2 and 4, their names have been deleted as per the order passed by this Court on 4th December, 1995 and hence now there is only one respondent who is the returned candidate. After pleadings were completed, issues were framed on the request made on behalf of the respondent, Issues 1 to 3 are heard as preliminary issues. Heard the petitioner in person and learned Counsel for respondent.2. The petitioner was one of the candidates in Vasai, No. 61 constituency in the State of Maharashtra. There were in all 14 candidates including the petitioner and respondent. The election was originally scheduled to be held on 12-2-1995, but it got postponed and ultimately the election was held on 26-2-1995. The res...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Mayur Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT524Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Shri V.K. Puri, the ld SDR mainly pleads that there is a point of law involved in this appeal, which has to be examined by all the officers and in that process delay has occurred and since it is an old matter, it took sometime to take a proper view.3. Shri J.C. Patel, the ld. Advocate pleads that the goods have already been auctioned by the department and question of releasing the goods as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not physically possible at this stage. Hence Miscellaneous application is infructuous.4. After hearing both the sides, in so far as delay is concerned, since it is pleaded that the appeal involves consideration of question of law, which has to be considered by different officers we condone the delay in view of the fact that the delay is not inordinate and admit the appeal for hearing in due course. However, we do not find any reason to pass any orders on the Miscellaneous application moved by the revenue. Miscellaneous application is therefore dismissed....
K.C. Khandelwal Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR720; (1998)IIILLJ847Bom; 1996(1)MhLj1000
Majithia, J, 1. The petitioner, Shri K.G. Khandelwal, President, All India Auto and Miniature Bulb & Components Manufacturers' Association, has challenged Notification dated January 1, 1993 issued by respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for brevity 'the Act') was enacted to prevent exploitation of labour and for that purpose authorises the appropriate Government to take steps to prescribe minimum rates of wages in the schedule industries. In an under-developed country which faces the problem of unemployment on a very large scale, it is not unlikely that labour may offer to work even on starvation wages. The policy of the Act is to prevent the employment of such sweated labour in the interest of general public and so in prescribing the minimum wage rates, the ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Anand Builders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR138; (1996)98BOMLR210
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner Union of India seeks to have the Award dated 7th June, 1995 filed in this Court and numbered as 'Award No. 209 of 1995' set aside.2. The work of construction of sub-structure such as Abutments, Piles, Bed Block of proposed Road Over Bridge in lieu of level crossing No. 17 at Mahim (for short, 'the said work') was awarded to the respondent on the terms and conditions mentioned in Contract Agreement No. C & S/482 dated 11th February, 1981. Though the stipulated date for completion of the said work was 26th November, 1981, it was extended upto 15th September, 1982. The said work completed on 15th September, 1982. In respect of the said work executed by the respondent, the disputes and differences arose by and between the petitioner and the respondent and in view of existence of arbitration agreement by and between the parties, the respondent demanded reference thereof to arbitration. However, the Railway Administration declined to ...
Toshniwal Bros. (Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Continental Valves Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR119
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this application registered and numbered as suit under the provisions of section 20 of The Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act'), the petitioners seek to file the arbitration agreement contained in the agreement dated 30th April, 1985 in this Court.2. On 30th April, 1985, the petitioners and the respondents entered into an agreement where - under the respondents appointed the petitioners as their selling agents for India for sale and distribution of the products of the respondents on the terms and conditions mentioned therein (for short, 'the said agreement'), Clause 22 of the said agreement which provides for reference of disputes and differences between the petitioners and the respondent to arbitration reads as under:CLAUSE 22. 'If any dispute or difference shall arise between the manufacturers and the selling agents touching upon these presents or any clauses of thing therein contained or the construction hereof or as to any matter in any way conne...
Praveen Vs. Smt. Uttara
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC208
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Heard finally.2. This Civil Revision Application is against the order dated 17.8.1995 of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, allowing maintenance pendente lite under the Hindu Marriage Act. The maintenance granted is Rs. 1,500/- per month. The admitted salary of the husband is Rs. 3,500/- per month. Mr. Rizwy submits that there are statutory deductions. However, the husband has not bothered to point out either to the Trial Court or to this Court as to how much these deductions are. In that view of the matter, there is no material before the Court to come to the conclusion as to how much those statutory deductions are. There is nothing wrong in the order. The revision is dismissed.No Costs....
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Meghraj GolechA. (Meghraj
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)60ITD448(Mum.)
1. All these cross-appeals and cross-objections arise from a common order of CIT(A) in the above-mentioned assessment years. They were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. Facts giving rise to these appeals and cross-objections may be briefly stated as under.2. Assessee is an individual. Assessee was claimed to be the proprietor of M/s Asian Trading Co. and M/s Ekta Sales. A search was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 12th Feb., 1982. According to the Revenue assessee was running 11 other concerns in different names from the same premises, namely, Abhinandan, Kalbadevi, Bombay. Assessee did not and has not till today, admittedly, filed any income-tax return for the assessment years under consideration. Ex parte orders dt. 12th Feb., 1986, were passed for all these years since assessee defied all notices issued under ss. 147, 139(2), 142(1) and 131 of the IT Act, 1961. The view of the AO was that assessee had been ...
Dr. Narottam Shah Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)59ITD657(Mum.)
1. The sole ground raised in this appeal by the assessee reads as under : "Without appreciating the fact that the assessee had requested for making a provisional assessment under section 141A of the Income tax Act for the I. T. Asst. Years 1981-82 and 1982-83 adjusting the resultant refund of Rs. 5,79,855 against the advance tax for I. T. Asst. Year 1984-85 the learned Income-tax Officer has erred in not recognising there was good and sufficient reason for non-payment of advance tax instalment in September and December 1983 and has erred in imposing penalty under section 221 of Rs. 50,000. Without appreciating the reasonable cause enumerated above the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the ITO." 2. The assessee, an individual, carried on the business of rendering economic consultancy service through economic data reports circulated amongst his subscribers at various periodic intervals. Subscriptions were received on an yearly basis. However, the period of s...
Ganeshrao Raut Vs. the Returning Officer, Parbhani Local Authorities C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom416; (1996)98BOMLR55
ORDER1. This is an Election Petition under Sect ion 81 of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 challenging election to Maharashtra Legislative Council from 14 --Parbhani Local Authority Constituency which took place on 15th June, 1994 and the result of which was declared on 17th. Petitioner is a defeated candidate at the said election and the Respondent No. 3 is the returned candidate. Respondents Nos. 4 to 9 are other contestants who lost the election and Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were theReturning Officer and the Collector, Parbhani who were directed to be deleted as per order of this Court dated 14-3-1995. A Special Leave Petition challenging that order was filed before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss it with an observation that the said dismissal not to be construed to mean that the Returning Officer and the Collector cannot be summoned if the High Court is satisfied that they arc required to be examined in the interest of the case.2. Only disput...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.R. Dash and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR712; (1996)IILLJ848Bom
Majithia J.1. The Petitioner, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, has challenged the order of the Competent Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, hereinafter 'the Act', dated March 27, 1991, confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority under the Act on March 26, 1993, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The factual matrix is as under :- 3. The third respondent was employed as a Clerk by erstwhile ESSO Company on December 28, 1950. He was promoted in the management cadre as Purchase Officer in the Materials Department with effect from June 1, 1983 on basic salary of Rs. 1930/- per mensem and D.A. of Rs. 516/- (then prevailing) vide letter dated May 23, 1983. In the letter of promotion it was stated that the promotee would be bound by the Rules, Regulations and Orders promulgated by the petitioner from time to time in relation to conduct, discipline, medical retirement and any other matter as these rules, regulations and orders were par...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »