Mumbai Court December 1997 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.
Saraswati TIn Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Meta Cans and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR12; 1998(1)BomCR137; (1998)1BOMLR14
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this summary suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code claiming that the defendants be ordered and decreed jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 9,48,000/- as per particulars of the plaintiffs claim together with further interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the aggregate principal sum of Rs. 7,37,857/- from the date of filing of the suit till the judgement and thereafter at the same rate till payment or realisation.2. The plaintiff is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 doing business of manufacturing tin plate, containers iron scraps etc. The defendants are carrying on business of tin and/or metal containers. Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are the partners thereof. According to the plaintiffs, pursuant to the orders placed by the defendants from time to time the plaintiffs s...
Manilal Govindji Khona Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR285; 1998(3)BomCR182
1. The appeal impugns the order dated 1st August, 1997, which refused to grant any ad-interim Relief.2. In a suit filed by the Bank for recovery of a large amount, by order dated 9th December, 1996, the learned Single Judge passed a decree. Under the decree, which was passed as the defendants submitted to the same; the learned Judge directed that the rate of interest should be @ a 12% p.a., instead of 18% p.a as claimed in the decree. The defendant was given time of six months to make the payment. Upon failure, the decree was to be as prayed for by the plaintiff Bank. The learned Judge also noted in the order that the defendant has not filed written statement. The defendant was to pay the decretal amount on or before 31st May, 1997. Upon failure of the defendant to pay the amount as directed not only the decree was to be in terms of prayer clause (a) as claimed by the Bank but also decree in terms of prayers (b), (c), (d) and (e). Clause (e) which is relevant directed the immoveable pr...
B.T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Konkan Railwa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR107; 1998(4)BomCR111; (1998)1BOMLR744
ORDERM.B. Shah, J.1. It is the contention of the applicant a Private Limited Company, that it is a registered contractor in several States, including the State of Maharashtra and Karnataka. The applicant is engaged in civil engineering works contracts etc., particularly pertaining to Tunnelling and Hydro Power Projects. Respondent No. 1 is the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and respondent No. 2 is the Chief Engineer (North) of the said Corporation. It is contended that, on 10th November, 1993, respondent No. 1 accepted the tender submitted by the applicant for construction of Karbude Tunnel- Tunnel No. 20 for Konkan Railway Project. The cost of construction was estimated at Rs. 3,48,41,163.84 and stipulated date of completion of the contract was 9th November, 1994. It is submitted that, as soon as the applicant started the work, several impediments were raised by the respondents in the said work. However, the applicant was in a position to complete the work by May, 1995. Still, howeve...
Tata Chemicals Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Mumbai)384
ORDER(Order on letter of Mr. Tralshawala dt. 27th August, 1997 and letter of the CIT-I, Mumbai dt. 1st September, 1997)R. V. EASWAR, J.M. :The appeal was being heard from time to time from 3rd July, 1997. Arguments were being heard in respect of the issue whether the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 81.24 crores as interest under s. 36(1) (iii) of the IT Act. One of the arguments addressed on behalf of the assessee was that in any event the formula adopted by the AO for apportioning the assessees claim should be struck down because no opportunity had been given to the assessee to rebut it nor was the basis of apportionment made known to the assessee beforehand and thus there had been a violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Departmental Representative, Mr. Tralshawala, while addressing arguments with regard to the allowability of interest, made a prayer to the Bench that on the specific questions raised with regard to the basis of apportionment of the ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Atul Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT522Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is whether mercury which is used as cathode in the electrolysis of brine for the manufacture of caustic soda can be considered as an input in terms of Rule 57A. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has, following the decision of the Tribunal in C.C.E. v. Mettur Chemicals & Industrials - 1991 (17) ETR 560, held that it is an input. Hence this appeal.2. The departmental representative urges the ground in the appeal that the cathode is an essential part of the apparatus for electrolysis and therefore is a part of machinery used for manufacturing the input. She further draws our attention to the ground in the appeal which seeks to derive support from the clarification in the Circular No. 9/98, dated 21-3-1989 of the Board.3. Representative of the respondent cites the decision of the Tribunal in C.C.E. v. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. -1994 (74) E.L.T. 966, in which mercury, while functioning as an electrode in the p...
Commr. of Cus. Vs. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT142Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 821 /96, dated 29-10-1996 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai whereunder the Commissioner treated Ion exchange resin, anthracite and rubber lining material as part of capital goods within the meaning of Notification 160/92-Cus. whereby the exemption was granted by her allowing the appeal of the respondent.2. The respondent Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. had imported a consignment comprising machinery with accessories for membrane cell plant and had filed a Bill of Entry 593, dated 6-9-1993 for clearance under EPCG scheme at the concessional rate of duty at 15% in terms of Notification 160/92-Cus. The Assessing authority found that the said three items referred to in the previous paragraph were not capital goods. A short levy notice was given. The respondent gave its reply.After considering the reply the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs had held that these goods are to be replaced periodically after they get exha...
Mrs. Indira Vijay Tagde Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR773; 1998(4)BomCR98; 1998(1)MhLj663
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel. The only point for consideration is whether the provisions of section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 can have no application in case of scheduled caste woman candidate who is elected as a Sarpanch and was the only Scheduled Caste woman in the Gram Panchayat. Few facts to appreciate the controversy in the matter, may be stated as under : 2. The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Pimpalkhuta Gram Panchayat on 28th August 1995. She assumed charge of the office of Sarpanch on 4-9-1995. On 12th December 1995, a requisition was submitted by respondents No. 6 to 11 who are represented before us by the learned Counsel Shri Gawai. Pursuant to the said requisition, for considering the no confidence motion against the petitioner, a meeting was held on 18-12-1995. The Gram Panchayat consists of 9 members, out of whom 6 were present. All of them voted in favour of the motion being passed. As a result, the motion of no confi...
Ashok Tubes and Another Vs. Steel Industries of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR292; 1998(5)BomCR305; (1998)1BOMLR179; 1998(1)MhLj700
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. This is a petition under section 30 read with section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the award passed by the sole arbitrator Mr. Suresh Deorah.2. Briefly stated, the facts and circumstances leading to this petition are as follows:The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are partnership firms registered under the Partnership Act, 1932. The respondent is also a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act. The petitioners are manufacturers of iron and steel goods. The petitioners import raw materials for manufacturing of iron and steel goods. During 1979-1980 the petitioners had obtained import licence from the Import Control Authorities for the import of raw materials. For importing raw materials, the petitioners had engaged the services of the respondent and for that purpose the petitioners had issued a letter of authority to the respondent. During the period 1979-1980 the petitioners imported through the respondent iron and steel goods worth Rs. 38....
Manikraj Devraj Moharkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)663; (1998)1BOMLR653
ORDERV.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order date 31-10-1990, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 594 of 1988, whereby, the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offencespunishable under sections 420 and 468 of I.P.C.2. The prosecution case in brief is that, the appellant alongwith other two accused had been chargesheeted for offences punishable under sections 255, 260, 261, 268 and 420 r/w. 34 I.P.C. It is alleged that in between January 1988 to 12th August, 1988, at Pune, all the accused counterfeited certain stamps issued by the Government for the purpose of revenue and used the said stamps as a genuine counterfeit with intent to cause loss to the Government and during the said period, they forged certain documents i.e. appointment orders under the signature of Police Superintendent, Shivajinagar, Pune City Police Office, Pune and also the letters of interview call issued by the Employment Exchange office ...
Ashok Industries Vs. Steel Indutries of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR179
A.P. Shah, J.1. This is a petition under Section 30 (now 34(2)) read with (new Section 34 of Act 26 of 1996) Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act 10 of 1940) for setting aside the award passed by the sole Arbitrator Mr. Suresh Deorah.Permission now withdrawn and the Power is now conferred on Arbitration Tribunal.2. Briefly stated, the facts and circumstances leading to this petition are as follows :The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are partnership firms registered under the Partnership Act, 1932. The respondent is also a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act. The petitioners are manufacturers of iron and steel goods. The petitioners import raw materials for manufacturing of iron and steel goods. During 1979-80 the petitioners had obtained import licence from the Import Control Authorities for the import of raw materials. For importing raw materials, the petitioners had engaged the services of the respondent and for that purpose the petitioners had issued a letter of a...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »