Mumbai Court January 1997 Judgments
M/S. Shreeram Construction and Another Vs. Maharashtra State Electrici ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Bom167
ORDER1. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs:(a) to declare that the revision in the condition and miscellaneous charges for supply of electricity particularly by revising notes 5 and 6 as per public notice dated 8th Nov. 1985 of the respondent Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) is illegal, null, void and unconstitutional; (b) to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent to withdraw and /or cancel the impugned revisionin the conditions and miscellaneous charges under public notice dated 8th Nov. 1985; and (c) to issue writ of mandamus to withdraw and /or cancel their demand on the petitioners to pay Rs. 3,27,800/- as non-refundable capital cost towards the cost of laying high tension line and erecting sub-station equipment in the petitioners' property and to make electricity supply available to the petitioners for their building 'Shree Ram Apartment Complex' on payment of only cost of low tension service l...
Tag this Judgment!Motiram Jayram Shinde Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)103
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J. 1. The appellant, aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 19th May, 1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Sessions Case No. 101 of 1983, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under section 304 Part I of the I.P.C. and also convicting him under section 323 I.P.C. but awarding no separate sentence, has come up in appeal before us. 2. Shortly stated, the prosecution story runs as under : The appellant is the son of the deceased Jayram Shinde, brother of Kishan Shinde (P.W. 3) the son of Sarjabai Shinde (P.W. 4) and the neighbour of Laxman Borade (P.W. 8). The evidence is that although partition of property, including agricultural lands had taken place between the appellant and the deceased, the appellant had a feeling that he had got a raw deal. He had a feeling that he should have been given a share in the vine-yard. It is said that on 24th April, 1983 at about 10 p.m., the appellant came to the house of the deceased sit...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Ciba Giegy Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Grater Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR705
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. The Petitioners are a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act inter alia manufacturing and selling Pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. The Petitioners have a Research Centre at Goregaon. By this petition the Petitioners challenge the levy of water charges and sewerage charges in respect of their Research Centre at Goregaon. It may be immediately made clear that the challenge in the petition is limited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to imposition of sewerage charges levied in respect of Research Centre at Goregaon. Petitioners have averred that the Research Centre at Goregaon was constructed and started functioning in the year 1963 and the Petitioners carry out fundamental chemical and biological researches therein. It is asserted by the Petitioners that when the Research Centre was constructed, there was no drainage system by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in the nearby area. The Petitioners, therefore, constructed septic tank system to...
Tag this Judgment!Ramrao Balaji Kothare and ors. Vs. Lila, Widow of Dr. Yeshwant Narayan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR400
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the original plaintiffs seeking to challenge the judgment dated 9th March, 1988 passed by the Appellate Court of the Small Causes in Appeal Nos. 591/84 and 674 of 1984.2. By the said judgment the former appeal of defendant No. 3 and latter appeal of defendants Nos. 1(a) to 1(c) and defendant No. 2 were allowed and the suit of the plaintiffs for possession was dismissed. The premises in dispute are the 3rd floor premises in the building 'Shri Krishna Pant Nivas' situated at 204, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road. Girgaum, Bombay-400 004. The said building was originally owned by one Khanderao Krishnanath Kirtikar who died in or about 1948 leaving behind a will under which the plaintiffs were appointed as executors and trustees. One Dr. Narayan V. Ajinkya was a tenant in respect of a portion of the said building till his death in or about the year 1944. The original defendant Dr. Yeshwant Narayan Ajinkya was the son of Dr. N.V. Ajinkya.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Emco Transformers Ltd. Vs. S.P. Shouche and Another.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1224Bom
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Challenges Part 111 Award dated May 18, 1992 made by the 3rd Labour Court, Thane, in reference (IDA) No. 144 of 1978 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') 2. The first respondent was an employee of the petitioner company working in the factory the material time, loyed as a 'Group Department of the petitioner company from January 2, 1964. The workmen working in the, petitioner company were represented by a trade union known as Association of Engineering Workers. During the period October 1977 to January 1978, the workmen had resorted to a sit down strike as part of their agitation for better benefits. This strike was declared to be an illegal strike by the competent Court. The petitioner was employing about 31 workmen as temporary workmen, who also participated in the strike. For this reason, the petitioner decided to terminate their services. On December 1, 19...
Tag this Judgment!P. Vijaykumar and ors. Vs. V.C. Gopalkrishnan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Bom127; 1998(1)ALLMR323; 1997(3)BomCR428; (1997)2BOMLR85; 1997(2)MhLj35
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J. 1. This is the defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30-6-1995 in Short Cause Suit No. 5434 of 1987 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bombay, Heard both sides.2. The Respondent filed a suit in the trial Court against the appellants for possession of the suit premises and for mesne profit and for consequential reliefs. The appellants' case is that he is a lawful tenant of the suit premises which he obtained from the original landlord who were impleaded as defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in the suit and who came to be deleted at a later stage. His further case is that the 5th defendant is his cousin and he was given permissive occupation of the suit premises along with the plaintiff for some time and subsequently 5th defendant along was staying in the suit premises with the permission of the plaintiff, defendant No. 6 is the wife of defendant No. 5 and defendants Nos. 7 and 8 are the children of defendant No. 5. Defendant No. 9 is the brother-in-law of t...
Tag this Judgment!Saurabh Satishkumar Sanjanwala Vs. Municipal Corporation for Gr. Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR370; 1997(4)BomCR244
A.P. Shah, J.1. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the decision of the Dean, Topiwala National Medical College, Mumbai refusing to grant admission to the petitioner to IInd M.B.B.S. course on transfer basis. The facts leading to this petition are simple and may be shortly stated. The petitioner after passing XII standard examination was admitted to the Medical College run by Mahatma Gandhi Mission at Kalamboli which is located near New Mumbai, Vashi. The Medical College of Mahatma Gandhi Mission is a recognised college affiliated to the Mumbai University. The petitioner passed his Ist M.B.B.S. examination in first attempt securing 453 marks out of 750. He applied for admission to the Medical College run by Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for IInd M.B.B.S. course on transfer basis. The petitioner's name was shown at serial No. 3 in the merit list and he accordingly appeared for interview conducted before the Dean of Topiwala National Medical Colleg...
Tag this Judgment!Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT248Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an Appeal filed against the decision of the captioned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai-I.2. The appellants are a Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of Paints & Varnishes falling under Chapter 32 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, [1985]. They had taken Modvat credit of Rs. 24,336/- on the strength of endorsed certificate. By order dated 11-5-1988 the Assistant Collector rejected the said credit and held that the credit is not available on the strength of endorsed certificate. Aggrieved against the said order they filed an appeal to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) vide his order dated 29-8-1989 held that the credit is admissible. In pursuance of the said order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), they filed a refund claim on 19-3-1990 for Rs. 24,336/- being the credit reversed on account of Original Order passed by the ld. Assistant Collector. By a Show Cause Notice dated 19-6-1990 the Appellants were asked to s...
Tag this Judgment!Roche Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT641Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an Appeal dealing with the importability of material Lithium Metal. The question involved in this case is whether Lithium Metal is a drug intermediate or not.2. It is the case of the appellant that they have imported this item under the heading OGL, they had imported one of the earlier instalments sometime on 9-11-1990, and subsequent instalment under the said contract when it was imported on 2-1-1991, the Customs authorities refused to allow the same stating that in view of the Public Notice No.83/ITC-PD. 90-93, dated 6-11-1990 these items could not be imported without a valid licence.3. The appellants is clearly waived the show cause notice and they duly attended the personal hearing. There they explained to the nature of the end product and the chemical process involved in the manufacture of end product at page 18 of the paper book. It has been explained about the end product Vitamin A Acetate. A (sic) has been manufactured in the impugned order at page 14. It has been e...
Tag this Judgment!Linde A.G. Vs. Income Tax Officer (Also Ito V.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: (1997)62ITD330(Mum.)
1. These six cross-appeals - three by the assessee and three by the Revenue, are against the orders of the CIT(A) for asst. yrs. 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87. Since they involve common disputes, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The first dispute in all these appeals is as to what is the nature of receipt by the assessee from the Indian concern in pursuance of the agreements dt. 25th March, 1976, commonly known as Supply & Engineering Agreement; 10th May, 1977, known as Ammonia Service Agreement; 12th March, 1984, known as Methanol Service Agreement; and 30th September, 1977 known as Methanol Contract, for supply of design and technical consultancy. Under the agreement dt. 25th March, 1976, the assessee purchased bulk material and spares required for setting up of a fertiliser plant in the State of Gujarat. These purchases were charged from the Indian concern, i.e. Gujarat State Fertilisers Company at cost plus 4 per cent procurement charges....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »