Mumbai Court June 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.
Mahindra D. Mathani Vs. C.D. Singh, Secretary to the Government of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR385
A.V. Savant, J.1. This is a petition by Mahendra D. Mithani, brother of the detenu Ramesh Kumar Babulal Mithani. The detenu has been detained under the provisions of section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, COFEPOSA Act,) by an order issued on the 29th November, 1994. Declaration under section 9(1) of the said Act was issued on the 17th May, 1995. The period of detention is two years under the order dated 26th June, 1995 issued by the State Government.2. The brief facts leading to the passing of the order of detention are as under. On the 17th July 1994, the detenu arrived from Singapore by Singapore Airways Flight No. SQ-412, at Bombay, on an Indian Passport. He was carrying two suit cases & one hand-bag & two plastic shopping bags. When questioned by the officer of the Bombay Customs Department as to whether he was carrying any valuables like gold, diamonds, integrated circuits etc., the detenu replied in the nega...
Ruparel Bros. (Bombay) (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Bom)436
M. B. SHAH, C.J. :The first petitioner-company agreed to purchase from respondent No. 6-company land bearing survey No. 143 (at present CTS Nos. 1397 & 1398) admeasuring approximately 6,229 square metres situate at village Marol, Andheri Kurla Road, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the said land'), for a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. A part of the said land was already notified by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay as reserved for recreational open space and/or setback for road widening under the Draft Development Plan prepared for Marol Village. For that purpose, an agreement dt. 5th September, 1989 (Exhibit 'A' to the petition), was executed between the first petitioner and the sixth respondent. The said agreement itself provided that parties would be filing Form No. 37-I under the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), with the Appropriate Authority and that if no order for the purchase of the said land by the Central Government is made by the Appropriate Authority,...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Star Laminates Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(65)LC247Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.M-1217/BD-793/85 dt. 11.3.1986, allowing the Respondents appeal against denial of the grant of permission under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules.2. The Respondents sought permission under Rule 56-A for availment of proforma credit in respect of the Polypropylene Sheets and BOPP Film, for their final product decorative and industrial laminated sheets. The permission was refused on the ground that this were not raw material and components and permission under Rule 56-A could be granted only for the raw materials and components, in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), finding given by the adjudicating authority was set aside, and it was held that the items need not find part m the finished product, and so long as they are used in the manufacture of the finished product, the permission under Rule 56-A could not be denied.The direction was therefore issued for granting permission under the said provisions. The department ha...
National Tar Product and ors. Vs. Commr. of Cen. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)(65)LC334Tri(Mum.)bai
1. A sum of Rs. 10,896/-, Rs. 74,519/- and Rs. 73,058/- respectively have been demanded from each of the three applicants on the ground that by subjecting the bitumen received by them to the process of "blowing" a commodity which is commercially different from bitumen and therefore liable to duty as having been manufactured emerges.2. The Advocate for the applicants says that although there is a decision on merits against the applicants in Bitumen Products (India) v. Collector of Central Excise , there has been a consistent practice by this Tribunal of granting stay because of the existence of a contrary view in the orders of the Board dated 16.6.1987 and 1.7.1988. He cites Order No. 423 dt 9.9.1993 passed in the case of M/s Tiki Felt Industries.3. The Deptl. representative says that once the issue has been settled by the decision of the Tribunal there is no question of grant of stay and therefore opposes the applications.4. While there is a subsisting order of this Tribunal that alth...
Mrs. Vandana S.P. Salgaonkar Vs. Bank of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom257
ORDER1. The petitioner (defendant No. 2 in the suit and sole proprietor of defendant No. 1) had sought amendment to the written statement which was rejected by Civil Judges S.D. Vasco-da-Gama and it is this order which is challenged in this revision. 2. Learned Advocate Shri A.P. Lawande for the petitioner, after placing before me the facts giving rise to the amendment application, submitted before me that the amendment is neither mala fide nor will it cause prejudice to the opposite party and that the lower Court erred in rejecting the amendment application. He placed reliance on Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon : [1970]1SCR22 , Anitha Swain v. Nilakantha Biswal, : AIR1969Ori267 Baburao s/o Rajaram Deshmukh v. Sonba s/o Janu Bhai, : AIR1976Bom332 , M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, : [1978]2SCR614 , Prasant Chandra Sen v. United Commercial Bank, : AIR1982Cal555 and Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, : [1984]2SCR333 and submitted that the revis...
Anz Grindlays Bank Vs. Rambhuvan R. Kahar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2097]
Tipnis, J.1. This petition filed by the ANZ Grindlays Bank, Bombay impugnes the correctness and legality of the order dated 9.1.1996 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal 11, holding that the order of retrenchment dated 10.5.1994 passed by the Bank against one Rambhuvan R. Kahar who was employed by the petitioner, as sweeper, is bad in law and the Bank was directed to reinstate the sweeper original complainant, with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. 2. The respondent no. 1 who was engaged as temporary sweeper in the Bank, filed a complaint under the provisions of section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act and contended that the Bank has committed breach of the provisions of law prohibiting the Bank to change of service conditions during the pendency of the reference. It is an admitted position that a reference is made in respect of about 43 workmen employed by the Bank and the main issue was regarding regu...
Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Balasaheb Dagdoo Hinge and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2086]; (1998)IIILLJ52Bom
Rehello, J. 1. Respondent no. 1 Balasaheb Dagdoo Hinge, joined the services of the petitioner as badli-workman with effect from 27.6.1962. The respondent no. 1 was thereafter taken in regular service from 1.9.1971 and worked upto 17.1.1982. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners herein that between 18.1.1982 and 25.5.1985 that the Respondent No. 1 did not report for duty. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 was taken as a fresh employee from 21.5.1985. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Respondent No. 1 on 25.4.1990 submitted a letter of resignation which was with retrospective affect from 17.1.1982. It is the further case of the petitioners that the said resignation was accepted and accordingly Respondent No. 1 was paid gratuity, in the year 1990 for the period from 1.9.1971 to 17.1.1982. It is the further case of the petitioners that as the Respondent No. 1 was taken as a fresh employee from 21.5.1985 and on account of his res...
Shri Shakeel Sait S/O Mustafa Ahmad Ali Merchant Vs. Shri C.D. Singh a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1996
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)261
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the detention of his father by name Mustafa Ahmed Ali Merchant under the provisions of COFEPOSA Act. The detention order was issued under the COFEPOSA Act on 16th February 1996 by respondent No. 1 who was, at that time, Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) and Detaining Authority. The said order of detention is annexed to this petition asAnnexure 'A'. The respondent No. 1 had also formulated the grounds of detention dated 16th February, 1996 which are annexed as Annexure 'B' to this petition. Consequent to the said order of detention, the detenu was detained on 29th of February 1996. At the time of his detention the detenu was served with the grounds of detention along with the order of detention and the documents and material relied on by the detaining authority. The initial order of detention was for a period of one year and the same was exte...
Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha and ors. Vs. Bennet, Coleman and Co. Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ971Bom
Tipnis, J.1. As these petitions raise common questions of facts and law and as the issues are also common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In Writ Petition No. 1568 of 1994 filed by the Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, a trade union, and by Mr. R. J. Mehta, President of the aforesaid trade union, against a company known as 'M/s. Bennet, Coleman & Co. Ltd.', the issuance of process against petitioner no. 2 by the learned Judge of the Labour Court is sought to be quashed. Bennet, Coieman and Company Ltd. filed complaint (ULP) No. 297 of 1994 before the Industrial Court under items 2(a), (b) & (5) of Schedule fit of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the petitioners. Application for interim reliefs was also made alongwith the main complaint. Ad interim orders were passed on 16th March 1994 restraining the petitioners and others mentioned in the sa...
Union of India Vs. Shyama Charan Agarwala and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)22BOMLR169
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to have the Award dated 30th August, 1994 filed in this court and numbered as Award No. 233 of 1994 set aside. 2. On 20th Oct., 1987, a Contract bearing No. CE BZ-54 of 1987-88 for 'Construction of Married Accommodation for Civilians (Industrial Staff) at NCHC Pawai' (hereinafter referred to as 'the said work') was entered into by and between the petitioners and the respondents on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. As per the said Contract commencement date of Phase I and Phase II of the Work was on 15th Dec., 1987 and the stipulated dated of completion for Phase I and Phase II was 14th June, 1988 and 14th June, 1989 respectively. However, the Work of Phase I was finally completed on 31st Oct., 1989 and of Phase II on 15th Oct., 1991 being the extended respective dates for completion thereof. The undisputed part of the final bill was paid by the petitioners to the respondents on 30th March, 1993. The said Contract...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »