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.
Air India Hostesses Association Vs. Air India Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR85; 1998(1)BomCR618
ORDERAshok Agarwal, J. 1. Present petition seeks a declaration that the settlement dated 5th of June, 1997, arrived at between Air India Limited, the respondent No. 1 and the Air India Cabin Crew Association, the respondent No. 2 herein, is not binding upon the members belonging .to the petitioner Air India Hostesses Association. 2. Respondent No. 2; it is undisputed, is a registered and a recognised trade union. As far as petitioner is concerned, though it has styled itself as a registered trade union, its status of being a registered trade union, is seriously disputed by the respondents. Petitioner, it is however undisputed, was a registered trade union since 1984. The registration, it is claimed, has been cancelled with effect from 12th of February, 1990. 3. After the settlement was arrived at between the. first and the second respondents, on 5th of June, 1997, first respondent issued a notice dated 6th of June, 1997 for implementing the settlement with effect from the 28th of June,...
Essel Packaging Limited and Others Vs. Essel Tea Exports Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR438
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Defendants and their Advocate absent though served. 2. The above suit has been filed for permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants herein from using the word 'ESSEL' as part of the corporate name of the Defendants-Essels Tea Exports Ltd. The suit is for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using the word 'ESSEL' to pass off or enable others to pass off the goods and or business of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have applied for grant of injunction in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the Notice of Motion which reads as follows : '(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendants by themselves, their servants and agents or otherwise howsoever be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Honourable Court from in any manner using the word ESSEL as part of their corporate name and/or trade name and/ or trade mark in order to pass off or enable others to pass off their business or goods as and for those of the pla...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aorow India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Bom)116; [1998]229ITR325(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the disallowance under rule 6D should be computed with reference to the total expenditure incurred by an employee or other persons during the entire year and not with reference to the expenditure incurred during each trip separately ?' The assessee is a limited company. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1983-84, the relevant previous year being the year ended on June 30, 1982. In its assessment for the above assessment year, the assessee incurred certain expenditure in connection with travelling by its employees including hotel expenses and allowances. The Income-tax Officer computed the disallowance out of such expenditure under section 37(3) of th...
Essel Packaging Ltd. and Others Vs. Essel Tea Exports Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR767
ORDERS.H.Kapadia, J.1. Defendants and their Advocate absent though served.2. The above suit has been filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants herein from using the word 'ESSEL' as part of the corporate name of the defendants--Essel Tea Exports Limited. The suit is for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using the word 'ESSEL' to pass off or enable others to pass off the goods and or business of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have applied for grant of injunction in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the Notice of Motion which reads as fotlows:-'(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendants by themselves, their servants and agents or otherwise howsoever be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Honourable Court from in any manner using the word ESSEL as part of their corporate name and/or trade name and/or trade mark in order to pass off or enable others to pass off their business or goods as and for those of th...
Meera Babulalji Modi Vs. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR54; 1998(4)BomCR425; 1998(1)MhLj175
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Rule issued against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 only. It is not necessary to issue any Rule against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as no relief is claimed against them.Notice for respondent No. 1 accepts by Shri A.M. Badar and Shri R. R. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleaders. Notice for respondent No. 2 accepts by Shri Z.A. Haq, Advocate, in all the petitions.2. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the parties.As already stated in the operative part of the judgment, we have disposed of and rejected the abovementioned writ petitions on 8th July, 1997. Following are the reasons in support of that order :All these five writ petitions involve a common question of repatriation of the petitioners, who were the erstwhile employees of the respondent No. 2--Chanda Shikshan Prasarak Uandal, Chandrapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society' for the sake of brevity), and were teaching in the school run by that Society. All the petitioners were declared surplus in their schoo...
Sasram Vasu (Keral) Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)179
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. The applicant was tried for offences punishable under sections 304-A I.P.C. and section 116 of the Motor Vehicle Act, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khandala. Vide order dated 12-1-90 he was found guilty for the said offences and was sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer S.I. for three months under the first count and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one month under the second count.The applicant challenged his convictions and sentences in Sessions Court, Satara and vide judgment dated 2-7-92, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1990,decided by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara, the applicant's sentence was reduced to 3 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, S.I. for one month under section 304-A I.P.C. The sentence in default of payment of fine under section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act was reduced to 10 days S.I. Hence this...
Sambhaji Pandurang Desai and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)419a; 1998(1)MhLj805
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. By this revision, the applicants have impugned the judgment and order dated 30-8-91, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara, in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1987, maintaining the judgment and order dated 1-10-87, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patan, releasing the Muddemal article i.e. motor-cycle to respondent No. 3, its original owner.2. The facts in brief are as under :---The complainant Jagannath (respondent No. 2) who claimed to be the owner of the motor-cycle (Muddemal) agreed to sell the same to applicant No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 14,500/-. On 22-11-85, applicant No. 2 paid earnest money to the tune of Rs. 200/- to respondent No. 2 who gave him the custody of the vehicle on the condition that on the same day, applicant No. 2 would pay the balance amount. Since the applicant No. 2 did not pay the balance amount, therefore, respondent No. 2 filed complaint against the applicants for offences punishable under sections 406, 420 read ...
Shri Namdeo Shankar Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtraa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)421
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. The applicant was tried for offences punishable under sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. and under section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satara. Vide his order dated 8-2-89, the said Court found him guilty for the said offences and sentenced him in the manner stated hereinafter.(i) Under section 304-A l.P.C. to suffer 18 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer 3 months R.I.;(ii) Under section 279 l.P.C. to suffer 4 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer one month's R.I.;(iii) Under section 337 l.P.C., to suffer 4 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer one month's R.I.;(iv) Under section 338 l.P.C., to suffer 18 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 4 months; and(v) Under section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to suffer 18 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default to s...
Mohd. Rauf Mohd. Yusuf Qureshi Vs. Shri R.D. Tyagi, Commissioner of Po ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR26
D.K. Trivedi, J.1. The petitioner-detenu has filed this petition and challenged the order passed by the 1st Respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Murnbai, dated 15th June, 1996, and prayed that the order of detention passed by the 1st respondent be quashed and set aside and prayed for release from the detention.2. The first respondent, Commissioner of Police on considering the material placed before him after recording satisfaction, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, has passed the order detaining the detenu and as per committal order the detenu was ordered to be kept with Superintendent, Mumbai Central Prison, Arthur Road, Mumbai.3. While passing the order of detention against the petitioner-detenu, the detaining authority has recorded satisfaction that the detenu is acting prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance o...
Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Bharat Starch Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT159Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Bharat Starch Industries (respondents) filed a Bill of Entry seeking clearance of the goods imported by them (viz. Ion exchange resins) under the EPCG scheme at NIL rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 111/95-Cus. against a release advice dated 11-9-1996 issued by Mumbai Custom House. The subject goods were covered by an EPCG licence No. P/CG/2134490/C/XX/37/01 /95, dated 22-8-1995 issued by the DGFT authorities under Para 38 of the EXIM Policy, 1992-97 AM, which was registered at Mumbai Custom House. However, the Asstt.Commissioner, Appraising Group VA, Jawahar Custom House vide his order, dated 4-10-1996 rejected the party's claim for assessment under the EPCG scheme and denied concessional assessment under Notification No.111/95-Cus. on the grounds that the goods imported did not fall under the purview of 'Capital goods' as defined in the Notification No.111/95-Cus. Therefore, as the goods in question failed to satisfy the primary requirement laid down in the Notificat...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »