Mumbai Court June 1997 Judgments
Arjun Shankar Kumbhar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)174; 1997CriLJ3463
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. By this revision the petitioner has impugned the judgment and order dated 22-2-1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Criminal Appeal No. 10/91 whereby the judgment and order dated 14-2-1991 passed by the J.M.F.C., First Court, Kalyan, in S.C.C. No. 8632 of 1991 convicting and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 1 month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo R.I. for 10 days for the offence punishable under sections 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act has been confirmed.2. In short the prosecution case is that on 8-9-88 Dilip Daware who was serving as in charge of Thane S.T. bus stand along with Babasaheb Patil P.W. 2, was on patrol duty and at about 8.30 p.m. when they reached S.T. Stand some passengers complained to them that the petitioner who was conductor in Bus No. MTD 8453 had consumed alcohol. Accordingly they went to the bus and found that the petitioner was sitting on the conductor's seat under the influence of alcohol. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamad Harshad Shaukatali and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)352
ORDERSmt. R.P. Desai, J.1. These three appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 11th June, 1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 409 of 1983 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay convicted the original accused No. 1 under section 392 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 3 1/2 years R.I. Accused No. 1 was also convicted under section 394 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. He was also convicted under section 392 readwith section 397 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. There was also conviction under section 3 read with section 25(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 for which he was sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The original accused No. 2 was convicted under section 392 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 1/...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Neeta Kirti Desai Vs. Bino Samuel George
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Bom74; 1998(1)BomCR263; II(1998)DMC134
ORDERA.A. Desai, J.1. The Family Court dismissed the petition of the appellant-wife seeking nullity of her marriage with the respondent. In this appeal, it is mainly contended that the marriage was solemnized by practising fraud on the appellant.2. On 18th October, 1991, the parties married at Pune. Undisputedly, appellant-wife is Hindu, whereas the respondent by birth is Christian. According to the appellant, as a precondition of the marriage, the respondent agreed and undertook to convert himself to Hinduism. However, he has not and thus practised a fraud. The further contention is that even before the Registrar, her consent on the form was obtained by fraud.3. The appellant has resorted to section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and alternatively to section 12(1)(c) of the said Act. Arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that though both the parties are not Hindus, the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide the question of nullity of their marriage.4. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Chief General Manager, Telecom Factory Vs. H.R. Thakur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1997
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR865]; (1998)IILLJ981Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against two orders of the Central Government Labour Court No. 2, one dated 16th January 1991 made in Application Nos. LC-2/2211 to 2403 of 1989 and another dated 28th January 1992 made in Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 1991, both under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.) 2. The Petitioner is the Chief General Manager of the Telecom Factory established by the Government of India in Deonar, Bombay. Respondent Nos. 1 to 193 are Class III and IV employees working in the Telecom Factory at Deonar. The Respondents are covered by the Central Civil Services (Classifications, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Fundamental and Supplementary Rules and the different orders issued by the Government of India from time to time. It is not in dispute that the factory of the Petitioner is a 'factory' within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Facto...
Tag this Judgment!Mahamadsha Ganishah Patel and Anr. Vs. Mastanbaug Consumers' Co-op. Wh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR719; [1998(79)FLR874]
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. These two writ petitions, one by the employer and the other by the employee are directed against the common order passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay on 15-6-1994 whereby the said Court maintained the order passed by the first Labour Court on 10th February, 1994 to the extent the employer was directed to reinstate the workman employee with continuity of service from 12.12.1988 and modified the orders as regards backwages. The first Labour Court directed the employer to reinstate the employee with continuity of service and full backwages except for six months while the revisional Court ordered 50% backwages. The employer in its writ petition is aggrieved by the order of reinstatement of the employee with continuity of service and payment of 50% backwages, while the employee is aggrieved by the denial of 50% backwages.2. Mastanbaug Co-operative Wholesale and Retail Stores Limited (for short, 'employer') is a consumer co-operative wholesale and retail stores and i...
Tag this Judgment!Control Print (India) Limited Vs. Cab Machines S.A. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR351; (1997)99BOMLR187
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the above suit claiming-declaration that the agency agreement entered into between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 is valid, subsisting and binding on defendant No. 1 and the defendants be ordered and decreed to perform the terms of the said agreement in its letter and spirit. Further declaration is sought that the purported termination of the agency agreement by fax message dated 28th March, 1995 is not in accordance with the terms of the agreement and is illegal, arbitrary and not binding on the plaintiffs and the agency agreement continued to be subsisting and operative. Damages in the sum of Rs. 7,24,00,000/- in lieu of performance of the agency agreement are also claimed.2. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the plaintiffs with prayers that the defendants be directed by a mandatory interim order to operate the agency agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 by routing all sales of equipments of defendants No. 1 in ...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Narayan Kuyeskar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1997
Reported in: II(1998)ACC212
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. I have heard Mr. S.P. Dhotre for the applicant and Mr. R.S. Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra-respondent. I have also perused the record and proceedings and the impugned judgment. The concurrent finding of the fact recorded by the Courts below is that as a consequence of the applicant driving a private bus bearing No. MRL-1384, near village Kharepatan, on the Goa-Mumbai Highway, on 19.5.1984. At 2.15 p.m., the said bus went off the road and fell in a streamlet resulting in 9 people being killed and 50 others being injured.2. After the usual FIR and investigation etc., the applicant was charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 304A, 279,338, IPC and Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act.3. I have perused the evidence on record and find that the same shows:(a) that on a turning, the applicant was driving his bus at a speed of 40-45 kms.;(b) Instead of being driven on left side of the road, the bus was being driven on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mukund Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT426Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of 69.16 lakhs approximately and penalty of Rs. 69 lakhs.2. Advocate for the applicant contends that the demand for duty has been confirmed on the finding of the Commissioner that goods described as "foundry fluxes" were during the period January 1991 to 1993, not considered to be inputs in terms of Rule 57A because they have been held to be part of the plant. He says that the goods are in the form of boards and sheets which are used to line the tundish which is a receptacle of molten metal used in the process of making films. He contends that the Commissioner has not taken into account the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal of Union Carbide v. C.C. -1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 which has held parts of items specified in the exclusion clause contained in Explanation to Rule 57A not to be excluded by the clause. He contends that the goods are in the nature of refractory materials, and were used to ensure that the surface of the tund...
Tag this Judgment!ispat Metallics India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT296Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 51,48,925/- and of the penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The amount is being sought to be recovered from the applicants as capital goods Modvat credit wrongly availed of by them Under Rule 57Q. The Commissioner has in the impugned order taken a view that the items in question viz. CTD bars, steel plates, angles and channels and like articles were used as raw materials for erection of structures which are immovable property and not goods at all. Therefore, no Modvat credit Under Rule 57Q is permissible thereon.2. Shri Patankar, the ld. Counsel for the applicants submits that the goods in question are parts of blast furnace plant for production of pig iron and granulated slags and as such they are covered by definition of capital goods Under Rule 57Q(1)(b) which covers parts of plant also as capital goods. It was, therefore, pleaded that the denial of Modvat credit Under Rule 57Q is not in order.3. Shri Gurdeep Singh, the ld. DR, for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hariprasad G. Trivedi Vs. Yeshwant K. Abhyankar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR403; 1997(3)MhLj402
ORDER1. Rule issued on 17th June, 1997 is, by consent, made returnable forthwith.Heard parties.2. Facts giving rise to the present petition, are as follows:Premises which are the subject matter of controversy in the present petition, are a 2 room tenement on ground floor of Yeshwant Bhavan, M.N. Patankar Marg, Kurla (West), Bombay-400 070. By an order passed by the Controller of Accommodation, Bombay, on 9th October, 1950, the said premises were requisitioned under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. The same were allotted and placed in possession of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is the landlord of the premises. Respondent No. 2 is the State of Maharashtra.3. On 22nd December, 1994, an Ordinance was issued extending the provisions of the aforesaid Requisition Act for a further period of three years i.e. upto 22nd December, 1997.4. On 11th March, 1996 an order of eviction under section 8-C of the said Act was passed by the Competent Authority against the petitioner. First responde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »