Mumbai Court July 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.
Ramchandra S/O Totaram Multani Vs. Chander Sharma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR169; 1997(3)MhLj444
ORDERR.G. Deshpande, J.1. The questions those need to be decided in the present matter are, as to whether the City Civil Judge, Bombay is subordinate to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division and, whether was the Civil Judge, Senior Division right in transferring a decree for execution to City Civil Court, Bombay under section 39(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.2. In nutshell, the facts of the case can be narrated as under :---The present petitioner-Ramchandra, filed Special Civil Suit No. 54/1992 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, naturally against the respondent-Chander Sharma. The learned Civil Judge, Senior, Division, Ahmednagar, who dealt with the matter, by his Judgement and order dated 5th December 1996 decreed the suit and necessary decree was drawn. To get the said decree executed, Special Darkhast No. 61/97 was initiated at the instance of the petitioner-decree holder. The total amount due on the date of the execution petition was Rs. 17,91,154/...
Smt. Tarabai Shankar Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)199
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Although the matter has been on the board of this Court since long, Mr. Anil L. Desai, learned Counsel for the applicant is not present. Consequently, with the assistance of Mr. D.T. Palekar, Addl. Public Prosecutor, I am deciding the matter on merits.2. By means of this revision, the applicant has impugned the judgment and order dated 16-9-92, passed by the IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1990, whereby the conviction of the applicant for offences punishable under sections 498-A and 355 of I.P.C. and a sentence of fine of Rs. 200/-, has been confirmed but the substantive sentence has been reduced from one year R.I. to six months R.I. The concurrent finding recorded by the courts below is that on the day of incident, in the morning, the applicant had given blows with kicks and fists to the complainant Sou. Chhaya Kiran Jadhav and the same evening at about 5.00 p.m., the applicant with a razor, removed all the hairs on the head of...
Mrs. Annie Kitty Creado Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)195
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.G. Karmali for petitioner and Mr. D.G. Bagwe, A.P.P. for respondents.2. This writ petition challenging the order of detention issued by respondent No. 2 under the COFEPOSA Act can be allowed on the short and the only ground taken up in this petition that the detenu was not apprised of his right to make representation to the detaining authority himself either at the time of the service of the order or even thereafter.3. This petition has been filed by the friend of the detenu, the detenu being Rahim Haroon Manoria @ Atzal Haroon Batatawala. The order of detention was issued by the respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act on 31st March 1994 which was served on the detenu on 4th March 1997. The order of detention is annexed as Annexure 'A' to the petition while the grounds of detention have been annexed as Annexure 'B' to the petition.4. From the grounds of detention it appears that the detenu was arrested on 10th January 1994 at Sahar ...
Hemand Doiphode and Another Vs. Dev Kapoor and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)176
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Although this matter has been on the board of this Court since a long time, the Counsel for the petitioners has not chosen to make himself available. In the circumstances, I have no option but to decide the matter on merits with the assistance of Mr. R.Y. Mirza, learned A.P.P.2. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order dated 19-9-88 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Bombay, whereby a process for an offence under section 420 read with section 34 of I.P.C. in pursuance of a complaint filed by respondent No. 1, has been issued against them. I have perused the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In my view, a prima-facie case against the petitioners for an offence under section 420 read with 34 of I.P.C. is made out. That being the position, in my view, the impugned order cannot be faulted with.3. In the result, this revision application is dismissed. Rule is disc...
Shakil Noor Mohammed Shaikh and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR688; 1998BomCR(Cri)449
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. The petitioner were tried for offences punishable under sections 336, 337, 504 and 506 all read with 34 I.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at PUNE. He found them guilty for an offence punishable under section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo 15 days R.I.. The petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1989 in Sessions Court, Pune, against the aforesaid convictions and sentences. The said appeal was decided on 4-6-1992 by the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune. The learned Judge altered the conviction of the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 from section 326 to one under section 324 I.P.C.. He, however, maintained the same sentence which was awarded to them for the offence under section 326 I.P.C. The Appellate Court, however, confirmed theconviction and sentence of petitioner No. 3 Arjun Rajaram Awachetty for the offence under section 326 I.P.C..2. The prosecution case i...
Atmaram Mahadeo Gaikwad Vs. Muktabai Tamaram Gaikwad and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR658(1); 1998BomCR(Cri)448
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Heard Mrs. Anita A. Agarwal for the petitioner and Mrs. Jyoti S. Pawar for respondent No. 3, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have been served but have not engaged any Counsel.2. By means of this revision application, the petitioner (original complainant) impugns the order dated 18-11-91, passed by the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, inCriminal Revision Application No. 111 of 1990, whereby the order dated 20-10-89, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpri-Chinchwad, issuing process against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for offence under section 500 I.P.C., was quashed. 3. The relevant facts may be stated in short. Respondents No. 1 Smt. Muktabai Atmaram Gaikwad and respondent No. 2 Shri Milind Atmaram Gaikwad are wife and son of the petitioner (original complainant) respectively. The allegation in the complaint is that they were asking the petitioner to mutate their names in the property which the petitioner refused. It is alleged that thereafter, they started ...
Armaity Jimmy Sukhia Vs. Victoria Robert Crasto
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR1
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. This is a suit filed by Mrs. Jimmy Sukhia (Plaintiff) against the defendant who has been described as Miss. Victoria Robert Crasto falsely claiming and styling herself as Mrs. Victoria Sukhia and/or Mrs. Victoria Jimmy Sukhia for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from proclaiming, giving out, declaring, representing or impersonating herself and from allowing herself to be declared or represented as the wife of Jimmy Dara Sukhia or as Mrs. Sukhia or Mrs. Victoria Sukhia. Interim injunction is also sought in the same terms. The Notice of Motion has been taken out wherein an injunction is sought restraining the defendant in the same terms as were sought in the prayer Clause (a) of the suit. An affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion has been filed. The averments made in the plaint have been reiterated. The defendant has filed an affidavit attaching therewith certain documents.2. The plaintiff states that she is a Parsi Zoroastrian and is res...
Philips India Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC719Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III. The appellants manufacture GLS Lamps and Bulbs falling under heading 85.39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The lamps are fully exempt under Notification No. 63/83 as amended. During the course of manufacture of lamps and bulbs, the Department found that a product called 'Stem emerges which is produced in the stem making machine. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants by a show cause notice issued on 2.9.1993 on the ground that the stems produced by the appellants are identifiable parts of bulb and are capable of storage. It was also alleged the stems by virtue of Section Note 2(b) of Section XVI of the Central Excise Act, 1985 are classifiable as parts of GLS lamps and bulbs under sub-heading 8539.00 CETA. The show cause notice proposed to demand the duty of Rs. 75,98,428/- for the period August, 1988 to June, 1993 and further five show cause notices were also issu...
Croslands Research Laboratories Vs. Commr. of C. Ex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT484Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellants manufacture patent or proprietary medicines falling under Chapter 30 [of] Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They supplied free samples of their product to physicians and had declared its value for assessment on cost basis. The juris-dictional Asstt. Commissioner took the view that as the prices of the big packs of the same product for sale at factory gate are available, prices of physicians samples are to be worked out on pro rata basis for the samples as per Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rules 7 and 6(b) of Valuation Rules, 1975.2. Rule 6(b)(i), which is relevant, relates to valuation of goods captively consumed requires determination of assessable value on the basis of value of comparable goods manufactured by the assessee or any other assessee; provided that in value determination under that Sub-clause the proper officer shall make such adjustments as appear to him reasonable, taking into consideration all relevant factors, and, in particular, t...
Kirit D. Bhutta Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT207Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeals are against the common order of the Additional Collector of Customs imposing a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on Kirit D. Bhutta appellant in C/92/91-Bom. and Rs. 2 lakhs on Naresh P. Shah appellant in C/93/91-Bom.2. The first appellant Kirit Bhutta was the proprietor of M/s.Chemographic and the second appellant the Manager. Penalties have been imposed following the finding of the Additional Collector that offset printing rubber blankets, graphic art films, cutting and creasing rules which were permissible for import by Actual Users (Industrial) had actually been imported by the appellant for sale by utilising for the purpose of 4 printing firms who were shown as the importers.3. The representative of the appellants say that his arguments are limited to quantum of penalty. He contends that, from the finding of the Commissioner that the first appellant was the owner of the goods it would follow that he has suffered to the extent of Rs. 13 lakhs, which is the value of the goods o...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »