Mumbai Court August 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.
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Manishkumar S/O Babulal Biyani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)452; (1998)1BOMLR760; 1998CriLJ303; 1998(1)MhLj431
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. The State has challenged the order dated 7th November, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, allowing Misc. Criminal Application No. 32 of 1996 preferred by the respondent under section 457 read with section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code for getting the possession of 39 gas cylinders, which were seized by the police on 1st October, 1996 in Crime No. 290 of 1996 registered under sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The applicant is a dealer of Handi Gas. However, those cylinders were not stored at a storage point to be fixed under the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation and Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993 and thus there was violation of section 3, which is punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The trial is pending. However, pending trial, the above application was submitted and the Court allowed the said application.2. The only question of law raised by Shri Wahane, learned Additional Public Pros...
Gopal Bros. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
Reported in: 1997(73)LC16(Bombay)
A.A. Desai, J.1. In 1982, the Petitioner imported Phenol and paid the Customs duty. Subsequently he realised that in view of the Judgment of this Court, Notification dated 18.2.1982 granting exemption is applicable to imported Phenol also. He, therefore, sometime in 1983 applied for refund. Simultaneously, he filed the Writ Petition, claiming the same relief. By interim order dated 17.9.1987, this Court directed the Respondent-Department to refund the amount of about Rs. 54,000/- on furnishing a Bank Guarantee. Bank Guarantee was accordingly furnished. Amount was refunded.2. We have heard this matter finally, with the assistance of Mr. Jetly and Mr. Rege.3. Undisputedly, the claim put forth for refund is beyond the period of limitation as envisaged by Section 27 of the Act. The same cannot be entertained as such, against the specific bar created by statute. We could not issue a mandamus by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We, therefore, dismiss the Petitio...
Ms. Sunita A. Gandhi Vs. Mrs. Leena Gandhi Tewari and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR715
ORDERS.H. Kapadia, J.1. The above suit is filed by the beneficiary, inter alia, for cancellation of the Agreement dated 18th December 1992 being Exhibit C to the plaint entered into by defendants 1, 2 and 3 (Trustees) on the one hand and defendant No. 5 - US Vitamins (India) Limited being the subsidiary of the holding Company by the name American Products Company Limited (defendant No. 4 herein). The suit is also for an order and direction against defendant No. 5-Company to hand over vacant andpeaceful possession of the premises admeasuring 10755 sq. ft. situate at Poonam Chambers, North Wing, 4th floor, Dr. Annie Beasant Road, Worli, Bombay. The suit is also for a declaration that 4600 shares in defendant No. 4 Company subscribed by defendant No. 1 (Trustee) is held by her for the benefit of the Trust and to transfer the said shares in defendant No. 4 Company to the plaintiff alongwith dividends and all other benefits accrued thereon.2. The claim in the suit is made by the plaintiff a...
Suresh Balkrishna Nakhava Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR494; 1998CriLJ284
ORDERPalkar, J.1. Admit. By consent of parties heard forthwith. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the Ld. 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigad, on 3-4-1997, for offences punishable under Sections 376, and 342 of IPC. The appellant has been sentenced for offence punishable under section 376 of IPC to suffer RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer RI for 3 months and for offence punishable under section 342 of IPC he is sentenced to suffer RI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer RI for 3 months. After directing that the substantive sentences to run concurrently, the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, acquitted the accused for offence punishable under section 506 of IPC. It is reported that the fine has been deposited by the accused. 2. This appeal came up for admission. There is also a prayer for bail. The matter was placed for admission on 7-7-1997, and 14-7-1997...
Amrutrao Ratnakar Rajadnye Vs. Krishna Sakharam Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR474; 1998(2)BomCR655
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. This is a petition by a landlord against the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 17th February, 1983. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :--2. The respondent tenants admittedly were tenants in possession on 1st April 1957 and in terms of section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 would have been considered to be deemed purchaser. An application accordingly was moved by them indicating their desire to purchase the land and pay the purchase price. The application under section 32-G was numbered as Inquiry No. 90/ Kerle by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Karvir. By an order dated 14th December 1959, the Agricultural Land Tribunal held that the petitioner landlord from the date of birth as produced by him was a minor and as such the tenant was not entitled to purchase the land on 1st April 1957. This was due to the fact, that in respect of certain categories of persons as set out in section 32-F of th...
Bhojraj Pandharinath Berad Vs. the Conciliation Officer and Asstt. Com ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR112; 1998(2)BomCR837
ORDERN.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. On 4-6-1996, a notice of demand purporting to be under section 2-A of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was submitted by the present petitioner to the Executive Engineer, Ahmednagar Irrigation Division, Ahmednagar. It was contended that the applicant was working from 1-4-1979 to 31-7-1981 as a daily wager employee and was terminated with effect from 1-8-1981 illegally. After receiving a copy of this notice on demand, the Conciliation Officer - Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Savedi Road, Ahmednagar intimated to the petitioner by communication dated 25-7-1996 that the demand notice was made 15 years after act complained and since no justifiable reason for this delay is made out, Conciliation Officer does not wish to conciliate in the alleged dispute. This order has been challenged in this writ petition.2. Shri S.K. Shelke, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Conciliation Officer acting under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194...
Raghunath S/O Ujvya Chauhan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR162
ORDERR.G. Deshpande, J.1. Appellant/accused Raghunath is convicted and sentenced under section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, by his judgment and order, dated 14-7-1995 for the offences punishable under sections 395 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default he is ordered to undergo R.I. for one year. He is also further convicted under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one month. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The period of his detention undergone is directed to be set off under section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Sessions Judge has further directed that out of the total amount of fine th...
New India Cable Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT482Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order captioned above, whereby Modvat credit on imported inputs has been denied on the ground that the Bill of Entry under cover of which the inputs had been received is not a valid duty paying document under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since the issue lies in a short compass, we grant stay and take up the appeal.2. Shri J.C. Patel, the ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Assistant Commissioner's order, because of certain discrepancy in the number of Bill of Lading as contained in the 'High Sea Sale' agreement for the import of the inputs entered into by the appellants with M/s. Vimal Metal Corporation and that found in the Bill of Entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the Bill of Lading number given in the agreement defers from the Bill of Lading number given in the Bill of Entry filed by M/s.Vimal Metal Corporation for the clearance of the goods. The other ground for denial...
Chimanlal Narsaji Suhan Vs. Parasmal Mithalal Parmar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR809; 1998(1)BomCR624
ORDERA.P. Shah, J. 1. This appeal by the original plaintiff is directed against the order dated 18th February, 1997 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the plaintiff's notice of motion for interim injunction, me appellant is manufacturer and dealer in buckets, milk cans, containers and sieves and other similar goods. The appellant alleges that he has adopted trade mark and label mark consisting of the words 'OM PRABHAT' written in English and device of 'COW in respect of buckets, milk cans and sieves in the year 1972. The trade mark and label are at Exs. A-1 and A-2 to the plaint. The essential features of the trade mark given in Ex. A-1 are the device of cow within two curved lines. Above the said device of cow, the words 'OM PRABHAT' are represented along the top curved line and the bottom curved line similarly followed alongwith the word 'BOMBAY' so as form the ground or base of the said device. The trade mark Ex. A-2 consist of the words 'OM PRABHAT' written with an oval lik...
Laxman Bapu Berad Vs. Sudhakar Nanasaheb Jawale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR667; 1998(2)BomCR259
ORDERN.P. Chapalgaonker, J. 1. This writ petition raises a question of law relating to the scope of jurisdiction of the first Appellate Court after the matter is remanded to it by the superior Court. 2. Petitioner -plaintiff- landlord - claimed to be the owner of a portion of Sur. No. 251-A/1 bearing Cantonment Register No. 22 situated at Khalewadi Bhingar, District Ahmednagar. Plaintiff alleges that he is in possession of the premises for more than 70 years and one room constructed in the said premises was given by him to the respondent-defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. Since 1st February 1976, defendant has neglected to pay the rent and a fresh notice was issued by the plaintiff on 10th August 1984 terminating the tenancy with effect from 30th September 1984. Thereafter, a suit came to be filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. The plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 718 of 1984 sought eviction of the defendant on the ground that the defendant has neg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »