Mumbai Court August 1997 Judgments
Pankuwarbai Wd/O Dalpatrao Mutha and Others Vs. Rameshchandra S/O Dalp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR477; (1998)1BOMLR171; 1998(1)MhLj118
ORDERB.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard Shri R.M. Borde, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Chaudhary for the respondents.2. With the consent of the learned Counsel of the parties, the matter has been heard and finally disposed of.3. Too technical approach not only mars the sacrosanct spirit but frustrates the very soul of the scheme, which has been declared and implemented by the Government of Maharashtra, giving certain benefits to woman litigants in the matter of payment of Court fees.4. The facts of this civil revision application lie within very narrow compass.5. After sad demise of Ganeshchand Mutha, who happens to be the son of the petitioner No. 1 and other co-petitioners initiated Civil action for grant of Succession Certificate, in respect of the debts, securities, cash, shares, insurance policies, etc. left by late Ganeshchand Mutha.6. The settlement was arrived at in between the respondent and petitioners Nos. 1 to 4. In response to the amicable settlement, the learned Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Maruti Yelpale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)316
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 30-10-1987, passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 215/1986. convicting and sentencing him in the manner stated hereinafter :---(i) Under section 302 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- i.d. R.I. for 6 months. (ii) Under section 201 I.P.C. ) But, imposing no sentence. (iii) Under section 364 I.P.C. ) Along with the appellant, was tried his real brother Bhagwan Maruti Yalpale, but, he has been acquitted vide the impugned judgment. 2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :---The deceased Suman was the wife of the appellant. She was married to the appellant about 10 years prior to the incident. After the marriage, she resided with him and his brother Bhagwan in a hut in village Ajnale Taluka, Sangola, District Solapur for a period of about five to six months. Thereafter, the appellant turned her out and she started ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Yogita Wife of ColIn Gudinho Vs. the Commissioner of Police and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)429
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel; Smt. Kiran Gupta for the petitioner and Shri Bagwe, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Slate. 2. The petitioner Smt. Yogita Colin Gudinho is the wife of the detenue Colin Francis Gudinho, who has been detained under the order dated 17-10-1996 (Exh. A-pg. 24)passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai in exercise of his powers under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug-Offenders Act, 1981 (for short, 'the M.P.D.A. Act'.). The order of detention has been passed with a view to preventing the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. By another order passed on the same date, 17-10-1996 (Exh. B/pg.25), the detenue has been directed to be detained in the Nasik Road Central Prison at Nasik. On 28-10-1996 the State Government passed an order under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the M.P.D.A. Act approving the or...
Tag this Judgment!Shri MohiddIn Mahomad Sayyad Since Deceased by His Heirs and Legal Rep ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR453; 1998(1)BomCR648; 1998(2)MhLj181
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J. 1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29th December, 1981 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in No. T.N.C./352/SA-39. The facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. 2. Mohiddin and Shahabuddin were the original owners of the suit land. Shahabuddin died on 20-8-1967. Few days before his death i.e. on 12-8-1967, he gave his share of the lands in dispute by oral gift to his wife Khudejabi for her maintenance. She, therefore, claims to be exclusive owner of the land. This land was leased by Shahabuddin and Mohiddin to deceased Vishnu Maruti Divate. He is succeeded by the respondents. Shahabuddin having died in 1967 and Mohiddin having died during the pendency of the writ petition, are represented by their heirs and legal representatives. Shahbuddin initiated Tenancy Case No. 89-B/1957 for restoration of possession of the suit land. The Tenancy Mahalkari vide order dated 7-5-60 directed restoration of possession of h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dujodwala Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT195Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is the classification in the Central Excise for the purpose of levy of additional duty of Customs, oleopine resin imported by the respondent. For the levy of additional duty of Customs equal to Central Excise duty for the time being in force it is the classification of Central Excise Tariff. The tariff has two headings in which the product can be classified. They are reproduced below: "1301.1.0 In or in relation to the manufacture which 8% any process in ordinarily carried on with the The importer claimed classification of the goods under sub-heading 90.The Assistant Commissioner, after issue of notice and hearing him, has classified the product under sub-heading 10. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside this classification, accepting the classification claimed by the importer in sub-heading 90.3. The Departmental Representative by elaborating the arguments in the appeal, first contends that additional duty of Customs need not be ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Transport Corporation and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1189Bom
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners in all the three petitions are similarly placed and the relief sought is same. Hence they are being decided by this common judgment. 3. All the petitioners are the employees of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') and the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 797/97 are presently employed under Akola Division, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 798/97 are employed under Buldhana Division whereas petitioners in Writ Petition No. 799/97 are employed under Nagpur Division of the Corporation. All the petitioner are holding the quafification of ITI and they came to be recruited as helpers on completion of apprenticeship training and by the selection processes prevalent in the Corporation. Initially all of them were appointed as daily rated helpers on different dates during the period from Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Umashankar Jaswal Vs. Royal Auto Centre and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR261]
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The employer Royal Auto Centre as well as the employee Shri Umashankar Jaswal are aggrieved by the award dated 1.1.1995 passed by 3rd Labour Court and both of them have filed separate writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 627 of 95 is filed at the instance of the employee wherein he seeks to challenge the award dated 1.1.95 passed by 3rd Labour Court whereby his demand that he should be reinstated with continuity of service and full backwages w.e.f. 12.3.91 was rejected. On the other hand the employer M/s. Royal Auto Centre in its writ petition no. 698 of 97 impugns the correctness of the finding recorded by the said Labour Court on issue no. 4A relating to the question whether the employer has proved that no industrial dispute existed between the parties on the date of reference. In case no merit is found in W.P. 627/96 filed by the employee, the writ petition filed by the employer is not required to be examined on merits. 2. Shri Umashankar Jaswal (employee) was emp...
Tag this Judgment!Dadarao Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR401
ORDERS.P. Kulkarni, J. 1. The appellant who is the sole accused in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 1992 tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, was found guilty on 2nd September, 1993, by the learned trial Judge for the offences punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. for which he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default R.I. for three months, and for the offence punishable under section 376 of I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months, substantive sentence to run concurrently.2. The appellant, at the material time i.e. on, 16th May, 1991, when the incident took place, was of 25 years of age. The incident is said to have taken place at the residential house of the appellant at village Eklara, the place 25 kms. away from the Police Station, Teleasaon Dashasar, District Amravati. At a shorter distance was the village Ghulkhed where there exists police ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Prabhakar Vinayak Natu Vs. Shri Vishanji Nanji Sawla and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)286
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. Heard Mr. Apte for the petitioner and Mr. Deshpande, A.P.P. for respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 though served is neither present nor represented by any Advocate.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25-4-90 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane discharging the respondent No. 1 accused who was being prosecuted in Criminal Case-No. 717 of 1986 on the complaint dated 5-12-86 filed by the Food Inspector under the provisions of the Prevention of FoodAdulteration Act, 1954. The allegations in the complaint were that the accused had contravened the provisions of section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rules of 1955 under Item A. 25.01, the Hard-boiled sugar confectionery. The respondent No. 1 was running a shop known as 'Prabhat Agency' and inter alia dealt in retail sale of biscuits, chocolates etc. and the hard-boiled confectionery under Licence No. B-19. The petitioner visited the shop...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Pharma Offset
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)(72)LC815Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessees in this case were manufacturing shells and slides for a cigarette manufacturer, whose brand name and logo were printed on the shells and slides. The assessees, being a SSI unit, filed a classification list claiming the benefit of notification 175/86. The Assistant Collector denied the benefit on the ground that the goods were being manufactured on behalf of a person, who was not eligible for the benefit of the notification. The Collector (Appeals) reversed the decision of the Assistant Collector giving rise to the present appeal before us from the Revenue.2. We have heard Shri D.S. Negi, Id. SDR for the Revenue and Shri M.H.Patil, Id. Advocate for the respondents.3. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board holding that where goods were manufactured by a job worker from raw material supplied by the principal manufacturer and where the transaction was on principal to principal basis, job worker is the manufacturer in terms of Section 2(...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »