Mumbai Court September 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 and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR303
N.D. Vyas, J.1. Both the above matters can be conveniently disposed of by a common order as they are inter-connected. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4152 of 1988 are challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 23rd June 1988 passed ex-parte by the 2nd respondent rejecting the application of the petitioners for refund of an amount of Rs. 1.66, 34, 080.00. By the Writ Petition No. 1389 of 1990, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the subsequent order dated 3rd January 1990 passed by the 2nd respondent, rejecting the application for refund in respect of the very same amount after hearing the parties. It may be pointed out that after the Writ Petition No. 1389 of 1990 was filed in this Court, the petitioners had preferred an appeal to the Collector. Central Excise (Appeals) against the said order dated 3rd January 1990 impugned in the said petition. By an order dated 11th February 1991 the appeal was allowed during the pendency of the writ petiti...
Uttam and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR488; 1997CriLJ1307
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. This is a petition by two convicts who are serving life sentence in the Central Jail, Harsool, Aurangabad, having been convicted for an offence of murder.2. It is necessary to summarise the facts leading to this petition.It is alleged that in the night of Sept. 9, 1980, petitioners and other accused committed murder of one Ambadas Gite. One of the co-accused Tulsiram was granted pardon by the trial Court and became the prosecution witness. Both the present petitioners, were sentenced to death and their Appeal No, 841/1981 along with the Confirmation Case No. 5/1981 was heard by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench was pleased to commute the death sentence into the life imprisonment, but did direct that they shall not be released from jail until they complete atleast a period of 25 years in prison notwithstanding the remissions and concessions earned by them. This order was passed 'by the Division Bench of this Court on 28th January, 1982. 3. The p...
Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Limited Vs. Richardson and Cruddas (1972) L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom35; 1997(4)ALLMR120; (1996)98BOMLR501
ORDERDr. B. P. Saraf, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 17thJune, 1991 in Notice of Motion No. 78 of 1989 in Suit No. 1056 of 1988 restraining the appellantsfrom invoking the bank guarantee furnished by respondent No. 1. 2. The material facts of the case relevant for deciding controversy in this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows. The respondent No. 1 M/s. Richardson and Cruddas (1972). Ltd., Bombay, had entered into an agreement dated 27th Oct. 1985 ('Agreement') with the appellants M/s. Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, for setting up of a sugar plant at Lucknow for an aggregate price of Rs. 4.55 crores. To secure timely delivery, erection and commissioning of the plant and machinery as provided in clause 15.1.1 of the said agreement, the respondent No. I was required to furnish a bank guarantee to the appellants for a sum of Rs. 22.75 lakhs representing 5% of the contract price. The said bank ...
Hemraj Gyaniram Patle and Others Vs. Yamunabai Wd/O Fanda Pardhi and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1996
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR134
ORDERL. Manoharan, J.1. The applicants herein are defendants 1 to 3 in Regular Civil Suit No. 79 of 1989 pending on the file of Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Gondia. The non-applicants 1 to 7 instituted the said suit for declaration and consequential injunction. That suit was with respect to Gat No. 275. The applicants herein filed a written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiffs and in addition raised a counter-claim seeking an injunction restraining the plaintiffs No. 1 to 7 from interfering with their possession in Gal No. 276 and the land adjacent to it. Thereafter the plaintiffs moved an application under Order VIII, Rule 6-C of Civil Procedure Code for exclusion of the counter-claim. The trial Court by the impugned order allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have come up in this civil revision. This matter when came up before the learned Single Judge, His Lordship felt that the decision in Chandrakant v. Man/Manikrao, 1988 M.L.R. 1488 relied on ...
Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1996
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas776(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single judge dated June 17, 1991, in Notice of Motion No. 78 of 1989 in Suit No. 1056 of 1988 restraining the appellants from invoking the bank guarantee furnished by respondent No. 1. 2. The material facts of the case relevant for deciding the controversy in this appeal, briefly stated are as follows : Respondent No. 1, Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Ltd., Bombay, had entered into an agreement dated October 27, 1985 ('the agreement') with the appellants, Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd, Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, for setting up a sugar plant at Lucknow for an aggregate price of Rs. 4.55 crores. To secure timely delivery, erection and commissioning of the plant and machinery, as provided in clause 15.1.1 of the said agreement, respondent No. 1 was required to furnish a bank guarantee to the appellants for a sum of Rs. 22.75 lakhs representing 5 per cent. of the contract price. The said bank guar...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Ahmed Gulam Nabi Shaikh and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2377
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. A Judgment of acquittal dated 15-7-1982, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 536 of 1980, acquitting the respondents for an offence punishable under section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, has prompted the State of Maharashtra to file an appeal under section 778(1) Cr.P.C. in this Court. 2. The factual matrix from which this appeal arises is as follows :- The deceased Mohis (Moiz) Asgarali Gari was living with his parents, brothers and one sister in Ghiya Compound, 2nd Hasnabad Lane, Santacruz (West) Bombay-54. He had a twin brother by the name of Mohammad @ Mamu who was similar in appearance to him. He had a sister Shamima PW 2 and a brother Zainuddin PW 4. He, Shamima and Zainuddin used to run a chappal stall (stall of slippers) at Linking Road, Bandra. The evidence is that for the said stall, they used to leave their house at about 9 to 9.30 a.m. every day by bus which they used to catch from the bus stop near the Convent, on S.V....
Keshari Steels Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1996
Reported in: 2000(68)ECC233; 2000(115)ELT320(Bom)
ORDERM.B. Shah, C.J.1. The Petitioners imported Copper Moulds Tubes for steel casting machines and paid Customs Duty on the Bill of Entry dated 11th January, 1985. In the month of July, 1985, the Petitioners received from the Assistant Collector of Customs, Group H, letter dated 1st July, 1985, stating that there was excess recovery of Rs. 25,136.10 by the Department and that, therefore, the Petitioners should approach the Customs Authorities within the prescribed time limit as mentioned in the Customs Act, 1962 (here-inafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. Subsequently, the Petitioners filed Refund Application on 29th July, 1985. That application was rejected by Order dated 8th August, 1985, on the ground that it was beyond the period of time as prescribed under Section 27 of the Act. The Appeal filed before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, was also dismissed on 13th March, 1986 (Exhibit 'D' to the Petition). Against that Order, the Petitioners preferred Appeal before the Cust...
Ramchandra Vithoba More Vs. Shamrao Sitaram Dalvi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR450
V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11th August, 1987 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay, in S.C. Suit No. 4012 of 1971.2. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the appellant-defendant is a trespasser in respect of the suit premises and for a mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to remove himself, his servants and agents from the suit premises and for a decree directing the defendant to hand over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and also for recovery of arrears of licence fee or compensation from the defendant at the rate of Rs. 375/- per month. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was carrying on business in charcoal in the suit premises for a number of years. He is the tenant of the suit premises, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 27.30. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant approached him for grant of leave and licence to use the suit premises for a period of eleven months...
Akberali Mohamed HussaIn Vs. Cc (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT889Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application for taking on record Saifuddin Akberali Pardawala son of Mohamed Hussain Pardawala for the purpose of pursuing the appeal proceedings consequent on the death of the latter allowed.2. Application seeks for reference to the High Court questions of law stated to be arising from an order of this Bench.3. In that order, the Bench confirmed the order of confiscation of gold and Indian currency stated to be belonging to Akberali Mohamed Hussain Pardawala, the earlier appellant imposed a penalty on him. The Bench noted that the appellant had made a confessional statement with regard to the gold and to the effect that the currency was sale proceeds of an earlier consignment of gold. It did not accept the plea that the statement could be disregarded because it was retracted. It also considered, but did not accept the plea that money acquired was through legitimate sources.4. The Advocate for the applicant stated that he was not pressing the first question. The questions for c...
Veekay Papers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT308Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant, who manufactures release paper, claimed exemption from payment of duty on the product under Notification No. 49/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 from 1987-88 onwards. In 1992, the department, as a result of testing the product, concluded that in view of the composition of the commodity, the product would not be classifiable for exemption under the notification. Notice was issued to the appellant, proposing denial of the benefit of notification. After considering the reply, hearing the appellant, the Assistant Collector passed orders denying the exemption. The appellant challenged this order before the Bombay High Court by a writ petition. The High Court, by its order, directed the Collector to call for and examine the record of the proceedings of the Assistant Collector in the present case and pass appropriate orders under Section 35E(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Collector passed an order on 25-4-1994 holding that the order of the Assistant Collector was legal, proper and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›