Mumbai Court July 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.
Governing Body, Nirmal Education Society, Gondia and anr. Vs. Presidin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR28]; 1996(2)MhLj592
A.A. Desai, J.1. The termination of the Respondent No. 2 (Teacher of K.G.) was set aside by the School Tribunal which is under challenge before us. Mr. Sambre, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contended that to deal with the termination or otherwise of a teacher in Kindergarten, the School Tribunal has no jurisdiction. Kindergarten does not come within the definition of 'School' as provided under sub-section (24) of section 2 of the Act which reads as under : 'School means a Primary School, Secondary School, or Higher Secondary School or any part of any such School, a Junior College of Education or any other institution or part thereof which imparts education or training below the degree level including any institution which imparts technical or vocational education.' 2. Mr. Bhangade attempted to counter the submission. According to him, the definition as provided is very comprehensive and includes the teacher of any School which imparts instructions below Degre...
Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tayebhai Mohammedbhai Bagasarwall ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom389; 1996(4)BomCR414; (1996)98BOMLR87
1. In this petition preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Petitioner who is original defendant No. 1 in the suit, seeks to challenge the order dated 29-11-1991 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs (Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein) was triable by that Court and that the said Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. 2. The original plaintiffs who are respondents No. 1 and 2 herein filed a suit against the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. It was inter alia averred in the said suit that the plaintiffs were owners in respect of the property being land bearing City Survey, No. 370(B) admeasuring about 12090 Square meters and structures standing thereon. One portion of such property comprising of a structure consisting of ground and first floor, was let out to the defendant No. 1. The tenancy was only with regard to the structure and not of land and it...
M/S. Dodsal Limited Vs. Krishak Bharati Co-op. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom3; 1997(1)BomCR102; [1999]96CompCas165(Bom)
ORDERDr. B. P. Saraf, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20th December, 1994 rejecting the prayer of the appellants M/s. Dodsal Limited for an injunction restraining the respondent No. 1, Krishak Bharati Cooperative Limited, from invoking the bank guarantee and respondent No. 2, the State Bank of India, from performing the same. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts of the case are as follows : The appellants M/s. Dodsal Limited had entered into a contractwith the respondent No. 1, Krishak Bharati Co-operative Ltd., for laying pipe lines. In terms of the contract, a performance guarantee for Rs. 35,75,888/- was given by the appellants to respondent No. 1. A further bank guarantee was given by the appellants to respondent No. 1 for the World Bank advance of Rs. 4.57 crores. The performance guarantee stood discharged in due course. The bank guarantee for advance payment, however, subsisted, though in course of time the amount thereof came do...
The City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur Through the Municipal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR520
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. By the instant revision, an order refusing to review the earlier order is being challenged. The factual panorama is as follows:A civil suit came to be filed against the applicants City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation and the Executive Engineer, Water Works Department by the present non-applicant. The suit proceeded from time to time. Written statement was field. However, on 23-11-1992 an application Exh. 28 came to be made under the provisions of Order 11, Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code for discovery of certain documents. This application was replied to by the present applicants by their reply dated 10-12-1992 and they opposed the application. On 12-2-1993 the orders came to be passed on Exhs. 29 & 30 wherein the defendant was directed to produce the copies of the documents in the Court. It seems that thereafter an application came to be made for discovery of documents on oath since the documents ordered to be produced were not filed. This application came to be m...
Shivraya S/O Kalappa Since Deceased Through Lrs. and ors. Vs. Baswantr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR217
R.G. DESHPANDE, J.1. The present petition has a chequered history as would be seen from the facts of the case. The matter relates to field Survey Nos. 113/A and 114/B with an area of 10 acres 26 gunthas and 13 acres and 14 gunthas respectively situated at village Shelgaon, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. The present petitioners before this Court are the purchasers from respondent No. 2-Hanumantrao, who happened to be the original owner of the fields in question. The respondent No. 2-Hanumantrao by three registered sale-deeds, transferred the fields in question to the present petitioners. These three sale-deeds are dated 18-6-1966; 23-2-1966 and 31-3-1967. During the pendency of the present litigation, as is clear from the record, the legal representatives of the petitioner No. 1 Shivraya Kallappa; petitioner No. 3-Pochgouda Baligouda, as also the legal representatives of petitioner No. 4-Hanmanta Piraji, are brought on record, who are all hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners', for th...
Stretch Fibres (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: 1997(89)ELT25(Bom)
P.S. Patankar, J.1. The petitioners imported polyamide chips/polyester chips for manufacture of nylon yarn. The imports took place during 1973, 1974 and 1975. The petitioners paid additional/countervailing duty on the goods imported by them. 2. It is their case that the Madras High Court in the case of Saigal Industries v. Central Board of Excise & Customs, reported in : 1980(6)ELT547(Mad) and this Court in the case of Century Enka Ltd. v. Union of India reported in : 1982(10)ELT64(Bom) considered the Central Excise Notification No. 38/73, dated 1st March, 1973. It was held that polyamide chips used for manufacture of nylon yarn are wholly exempt from the payment of additional/countervailing duty in view of the said Notification. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they were not liable to pay the additional/countervailing duty and entitled to get the benefit of the said Notification No. 38/73. Therefore, they filed 45 refund applications in respect of the 45 consignments which the...
Smt. Usha W/O Pandurang Dhabekar Vs. Prakash Sahakari Griha Nirman San ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR136
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, directing the restoration of possession of the suit plot in favour of non-applicant No. 2 Vijay Vithalrao Joshi, is challenged in this Civil Revision Application. The following facts will highlight the controversy.2. Applicant Usha Pandurang Dhabekar filed a dispute before the Judge, Co-operative Court, Nagpur, against non-applicant No. 1 Prakash Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha (hereinafter called 'the Society' for the sake of brevity) and others, for a declaration that the applicant/disputant was entitled for allotment of a plot admeasuring 50' x 100' in its Somalwada Layout No. 3, Khasra No. 152/2. The disputant's further request was to permanently restrain the Society from transferring or alienating one plot, admeasuring 50' x 100', from its Somalwada Layout No. 3, Khasra No. 152/2. Her further case was that she had deposited the total amount of Rs. 9,241/- from t...
Shri Shashikant Karbotkar Vs. Shri Suresh R. Karbotkar, Since Deceased ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR683
R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner had filed a suit for eviction and mesne profits against the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that when he was sick, he had requested original defendant No. 1 Suresh Karbotkar, who is his brother, to look after the business; that taking advantage of sickness of the petitioner, original defendant No. 1 fraudulently obtained plaintiff's signatures on some documents; that on recovery of illness, original defendant No. 1 declined to hand over the suit business. According to petitioner, the so-called deed of lease/royalty under which the respondents claim right is a manipulated document and the said document has not been produced by the respondents to date in the Civil Suit. Even though the petitioner claimed that the said document was manipulated, yet he chose to terminate the so-called agreement/deed of lease/royalty. On these grounds, the petitioner sought eviction of the respondents. 2. Subsequently to the filing of the suit, the petitioner filed...
Kripasing Sheetalaprasad Srivastav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR405
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23rd November, 1981 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 361 of 1980 convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us.Along with the appellant one Nandkishore Gulabsingh Rathod was also convicted under section 302 I.P.C. read with 34 I.P.C. and had been sentenced to life imprisonment. He had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1982 in this Court. As the learned Additional Public Prosecutor made a statement on the basis of some documentary evidence that the said appellant had died on 9-9-84, we ordered his appeal to stand abated on 28-6-96.2. The prosecution case in brief runs as under:---Deceased Premchand was the real brother of Kishore Ghusia P.W. 5 and Jaichand Ghusia P.W. 8. They had a sister Lajwanti who was married about 15 years ago to one Ramkrishna in Gorakhpur, Ut...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Carpet House
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT436Tri(Mum.)bai
1. As the Department has sought for stay against the implementation of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), and because, the goods have so far not been released in pursuance of the said order, the appeals have been granted out of turn hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Both the appeals, though are against different Respondents and are in relation to different orders-in-appeal, because both involve in consideration of the same issue, both the appeals are, on request of the parties, taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of due identification, Appeal No.C/123/96 is against Order-in Appeal No. 814/95-BCH dated 12-12-1995, whereas Appeal No. C/124/96A-Bom is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 917/95-BCH, dated 13-12-1995 and both the said orders are passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.3. Respondents M/s. Carpet House (Appeal C/123/96), imported "supranol Green BW" Dye...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »