Mumbai Court April 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.
Canara Bank and Shri Chandrakant P. Gavas and ors. Vs. Metallica Inds. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Bom296; 1997(4)BomCR518; [2000]100CompCas316(Bom); 1997(3)MhLj54
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. Heard.2. The applicants who are 29 in number apply by way of this chamber summons for direction to the plaintiff to implead them as defendants. Canara Bank, the plaintiff, has filed the suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 47, 52, 964.33, Rs. 48, 70, 672.77, Rs. 66, 60, 785.48, Rs. 12, 31, 095. 09, and, Rs. 6, 01, 154.50 particulars of which have been in the plaint alongwith further interest 23.75% p.a. compounded at quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit till payment and realisation together with cost against the defendants viz., M/s. Metallica Industries Limited, and Shri. Hari Shanker Jalan. The claim of the plaintiff Bank is for recovery of aforesaid outstanding amount for the cash credit facility granted to the defendants.3. The applicants' case in the chamber summons is that they are permanent workmen of the defendant No. 1 company for last so many years. The defendant No. 1 company had been very irregular in making payment of wages to them. According to...
Ramanbhai B. Patel and ors. Vs. S.R. Sharma and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR438
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the advocates. The petition-criminal application is filed for quashing the criminal complaint lodged by Respondent No. 1 against the petitioners under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.2. The very short point was raised by the petitioners counsel in this matter. According to him, the Drug Inspector took sample of the drug on 21st September, 1990 of Evans 2.5 Mg batch No. 002 from M/s Kant Agencies at Panvel, Raigad and the said sample was sent to the Govt. analyst on the same day. The Analyst by his report dt. 5.2.91 reported that the sample does not comply with specified standard and that the drug was sub-standard.3. On 12.3.91, the petitioner wrote to the Drug Inspector that he wants to challenge the report of the Govt. Analyst. After about one year i.e. by the letter dt. 15.2.92, the petitioners were informed that they should approach the JMFC Panvel so that they can challenge the report of the Govt. Analyst. The petitioners were given 20 days time for the ...
Harbanslal Malhotra and Sons Ltd. Vs. Vidyut Metallics Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR636
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 13.1.1997 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane, below Ex. 342 in Regular Civil Suit No. 809/1994. At Ex. 342 is an application filed by the respondent, who is the defendant in the civil suit, for permission to amend its written statement. The trial court, by its order impugned in this petition, has allowed the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the respondent.2. Regular Civil Suit No. 809/1994 has been filed by the present petitioner claiming therein that it is the owner of land surrounded by boundary walls bearing Survey No. 95, Hissa Nos. 3 & 9, Survey No. 96, Hissa Nos. 1 and 2, and Survey No. 105, Hissa No. 4, totally admeasuring about 20,681 sq. metres, situate at Mohanji Sunderji Road, Thane Taluka, within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of the City of Thane. It is further claimed that the responde...
Plasticolour Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1997
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT439Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both appellants viz. Plasticolour Corporation and Polymer Alloys are engaged in the manufacture of black sheating compound and HDPE granules, filled reinforced thermoplastic and black polythelene granules etc. covered under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and holding the Central Excise licence No. ARIII/14/83 and AR III/Ch.39/8/87. The said units were availing Modvat facility under Rule 57A and holding permission under Rule 57F(2) at the job worker's premises viz. M/s. Polymer Alloys.2. During the course of checking by the staff of the Central Excise office, the stock of finished and semi-finished goods and inputs in the premises of M/s. Plasticolour Corporation and Polymer Alloys it was noticed that there were differences in physical stock and statutory records. The finished goods i.e.. black sheating compound 8387.9 kgs duly packed in HDPE bags ready for delivery were also lying in finishing room of M/s. Plasticolour Corporation was not accounted for in any Cent...
Andrey KolatukhIn Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR675
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel. Since the facts and contentions are common to both the petitions they are disposed of by common judgment.2. The two detenues who are Russian citizens, claim to have been employed aboard Russian ship 'Novikov Priboy'. Andrey, the detenu in Writ Petition No. 232 claims to have been employed as First Officer whereas Aleksander, the detenu in Writ Petition No. 233 claims to have been employed as a Radio Officer aboard the said ship. They have been detained under the orders dated 3rd April, 1996 issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention), who is the Detaining Authority. In exercise of his powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (For short 'COFEPOS A') the orders of detention have been issued on 3rd April, 1996 with a view to preventing the detenues from smuggling goods.3. Having regard to the onl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›