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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Polymers Fabriks
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT281Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal from the Department is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. GS/1171/B-I/92, dated 10-2-1993 of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.2. Pursuant to an Order-in-Appeal, the Respondents had become eligible to get some refund and hence they filed a refund claim in the proforma specified. The Assistant Collector having jurisdiction, vide endorsement on the same application, passed an order sanctioning refund and also made endorsements for issuance of a cheque for the amount sanctioned as refund based on which, the cheque was drawn. All these orders and drawal of the cheque were on 5-4-1990. The said cheque was sent to the party under covering letter dated 6-4-1990 mentioning that the referred claim was sanctioned. It may be observed that though the claim was for refund of Rs. 57,821.21, the refund sanctioned was for Rs. 52,694.01. Subsequently however, the same Assistant Collector passed yet another order dated 22-8-1990 also sanctioning the sai...
Ardeshir P. Banaji Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom68; 1997(1)BomCR107; 1996(2)MhLj737
ORDER1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the policy framed by the Ministry of Defence and seeks a mandatory direction to de-hire and/or release petitioner's flat hired by the Defence the year 1942. Briefly the facts are that in or about 1930 the petitioner's grandmother one Gulbai B. Banaji constructed a building by name 'The Cliff' at Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai. In 1939 World War II began and due to the war Government urgently required premises in Mumbai for the officers of the country's armed forces. On 10th August, 1942 the Government hired the entire buildings through Gulbai under the Defence of India Rules, 1939. Thereafter at the request of the then Defence Ministry an agreement dated 12th February, 1944 was entered into between the said Gulbai and the Governor-General-in-Council whereunder the building was hired by the Governor-General-in-Council for war purposes on a rent of Rs. 775/- per month. It seems that after the war all the fla...
LamIn Bojang Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR524; (1996)98BOMLR148; 1997CriLJ513
Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13-5-1993, passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay in NDPS Special Case No. 947/1990, convicting and sentencing him to undergo 10 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) in default to further undergo RI for 1 year under Section 21, read with S. 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act, has come up in appeal before us. Along with the appellant, three others namely Jose Carlas Ca, Pauline Viera and Mrs. Nazma @ Ruksana Ibraham, were also prosecuted and tried, but, they have been acquitted vide the impugned judgment. Against their acquittal, the State of Maharashtra has preferred no appeal in this Court. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 20-6-1990, at about 7.30 a.m. PSI Madhukar Khangte PW 1 of Antop Hill Police Station, received an information that some Negroes were dealing in drugs in Sector No. VII in Central Gov...
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Vazir Glass Works Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR180]; (1998)IIILLJ231Bom
Rebello, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was argued for a considerable length of time at the stage of admission. After going through the records and seeing the nature of the matter, on a query from the court to the counsel for the parties, whether the matter could be disposed of finally, the learned counsel agreed and hence this petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. Rule. Shri Nerlekar waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 company and Mr. Dixit on behalf of respondent No. 2. By consent of parties Rule heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner is a union representing the employees of the 1st respondent Company. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the award dated 20.4.1995 in IT No. 25 of 1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal Maharashtra, Mumbai on a reference made by the State Government under Section 25(O)(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent No. 2 State of Maharashtra had made th...
Shri Joao Mariano Fernandes S/O. Late Pedro Fernandes Vs. State of Goa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR343
T.K. Chandra Shekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the Notification No. 22/115/95-RD dated 20/12/1995, issued by the respondents under section 4, read with 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also the Notification No. 22/115/95-RD dated 18-3-1996 issued by the Government under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Under the Notification dated 18-3-1996, the Government has invoked the emergency provision dispensing with the inquiry under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and sought taking possession of the land covered under the aforesaid Notification. The aforesaid Notification was issued for acquiring land for Industrial Development Corporation, Panaji for allotment of the land to the companies, both National and International, who are interested to set up their industrial units on large scale basis in the Verna Industrial Area. The petitioner claims that he is a tenant in respect of the land under plot No. 293, which is a large extent of land,...
Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Steel Gupta Industries
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR192
P.S. Patankar, J.1. Both these applications are filed by the two plaintiffs (respondents in Appeals) against original defendant (appellant in appeal). The prayer made is the same i.e. to relieve the plaintiffs-applicants from the consequences envisaged by Clause 6 of the consent terms entered into between the parties in the aforesaid two appeals dated 9-4-1991. The prayer arises in view of the following facts. Hereafter the reference shall be made to the parties as plaintiffs and defendant.2. The plaintiffs are owners of two re-rolling Steel Mills situated at Pune. Two agreements for conducting those 2 mills were entered into between two plaintiffs and defendant on 9-4-1980 and supplementary agreement on clarifying the term regarding the payment of compensation. The period fixed was 3 years from the date of taking over possession i.e. 12-4-1980. As the period came to an end, the plaintiffs on 19-4-1983 demanded possession of machinery and to stop incidental use of premises. However, th...
Embicha Bawa Basheer Ahmed Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR512; (1996)98BOMLR489
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel.2. This is a petition by the detenu himself challenging the order dated 30th May, 1995 passed by the detaining authority, viz., Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) in exercise of his powers under sub-section (i) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA). The detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods. The brief facts relevant for deciding the only contention raised before us are as under :3. On 17th January, 1995, the Air Intelligence Unit, Bombay Customs at Sahar Airport, Bombay intercepted a passenger named Smt. Naseema Beevi Subair at the check-in-counter of Gulf Airlines, Module I, NIPT Sahar Airport, Bombay. She had checked in with one card board carton with baggage identification tag No. GP. 352615 and she was...
Jagannath S/O Ganpat Girhe and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra Th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)363
ORDERM.B. Ghodeswar, J.1. Petitioners Police constables have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order dated 29-7-1995 Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murtizapur in Regular Criminal Case No. 27 of 1994 rejecting the application of the petitioners for recalling the summons order dated 13-7-1994 of issuance of process under section 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the judgment dated 19-10-1995 passed/delivered by the Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision No. 210 of 1995 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners.2. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are as follows.Respondent No. 2 Manabai w/o Kashiram Tondle the complainant and the mother of deceased Bhagwan aged 29 years had filed criminal complaint under section 302, 304-Part II, 364, 324, 365, 325, 109, 448, 394, 118, 115, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and Shri K.J. Pawar (P.S.I....
Govind Ramchandra Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR148; 1997BomCR(Cri)241; 1996CriLJ4186
S.S. Parkar, J.1. This appeal has been filed challenging the conviction of the appellant under S. 302 of IPC and imprisonment for life imposed on him by the judgment and order dated 25th August 1982 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 174 of 1978. 2. Facts leading to the conviction of the appellant briefly stated are as under :The appellant was a Police Constable attached to Kalyan Railway Station at the relevant time in the year 1976 when the offence was committed on 21st January 1976. The appellant was charged under S. 302 of IPC for having committed the murder of Ashok Vishnupant Kulkarni who was Railway Police Constable at the Pune Railway Station. The said railway police station is situated in the premises of Pune Railway Station. In front of the said office there is a verrandha. The office of the Police Inspector is on platform No. 1 of the Pune Railway Station at a distance of about 400 yards from the Pune Railway Police Station. At the ...
Vasu D. Mestha Vs. Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd., Being an Instru ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR136
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Rule, by consent heard both sides forthwith.2. The petitioner was a Bus Conductor under the first respondent. He was charge-sheeted for misconduct of misappropriation of funds. After disciplinary inquiry an order dated 23rd January, 1996, has been passed by the first respondent demoting him to the post of helper. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The only point urged by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Order impugned is ex facie illegal as it has been passed demoting him to a lower category which he has never worked in or it is not feeder post for promotion to the post of Bus Conductor. The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that even though the order is found to be prima facie illegal this Court cannot interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as an effective and alternate remedy by way of appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »