Mumbai Court October 1998 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.
Kiran Desai Vs. Napolean Chemicals (i) Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR541
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This Writ Petition arises out of a Complaint filed by the 1st Respondent before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 1, Thane in Criminal Case No. 366 of 1990. In the complaint the Complainant alleged that he placed Order for supply of Engineering Articles manufactured at the Petitioner's Company. It is alleged that as per the contract between the parties the time was stipulated to be the essence of the contract and any delay in the delivery will entail the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- per day with effect from 2.12.1989. Accordingly, the articles were delivered on 12.12.1989 admittedly with the delay of 10 days. On delivery, certain defects were noticed in the articles. The Complainant also informed the Petitioner that he has spent about Rs. 35,000/- for the rectification of the articles, and he also paid the fine for the consequent delay in supplying the goods for his customers. Accordingly an amount of Rs. 68,000/- was claimed by th...
ipcl Vs. Commissioner of Customs and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT113Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In his impugned order passed on 12-3-1991 the Collector confirmed the demand for duty of Rs. 34.07 lakhs from M/s. Climax Synthetics P.Ltd. on the ground that it had cleared without payment of duty plastic sheets in the guise of high density polyethlene sheets which was exempted from duty imposed a penalty on M/s. Climax. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 75 lakhs on the appellant for abetting the clearance without payment of duty by misdeclaring in the contract for the goods plastic sheets other than high density polyethylene manufactured by job worker.2. The Tribunal by its order dated 17-7-1993 set aside the order of the Commissioner and remanded the matter and determination after considering the contention raised on behalf of the Climax that it was entitled to Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used for the manufacture. In that de novo order dated 24-6-1995 the Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty of Climax but allowed to be adjusted against it an amount of Modva...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Glaxo India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT766Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Collector (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No. GS/10/BI/94, dated 28-3-1994 who has held that duty paid on droppers purchased from outside and supplied by the assessee along with bottles of medicines is entitled to Modvat credit.2. Shri A.R.S. Kumar, learned JDR for the department, argued that reference application has been filed. Therefore the department's case has to be accepted. I have considered the submissions. "In the order No. 1857/93/WRB, dated 1-9-1993, [1994 (72) E.L.T. 446 (Tribunal)] the Appellate Tribunal has held that if the value of the droppers is included in the value of the drugs and it is marketed at the factory gate in the form of a pack with the droppers has to be construed a component. In such a situation duty paid on the droppers would be eligible for Modvat credit." 4. The contention raised by the department is that reference application has been filed against the decision referred to by ...
Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited Vs. Rajinder Steels Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR344
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit. Heard forthwith. By the present petition the petitioners have prayed amongst other reliefs for appointment of Receiver in respect of leased equipments described in Schedule Exhibit 'A' to the petition. There is also a prayer for injunction to restrain the respondents from disposing and/or parting with possession, etc., of the leased property.2. The petitioners pursuant to an agreement have leased out certain properties to the respondents. The lease rentals were to be paid in terms of the agreement. There were defaults by the respondents in making payments. On failure by the respondents to comply with the terms of the agreement and as respondents had committed breaches by letter dated 20th February, 1998 the petitioners terminated the agreement. The petitioners sought from the respondents immediate delivery of the equipment in good order and condition and further the amount specified in letter dated 3rd March, 1998. The respondents replied to the said lett...
Nirfabrics Limited Vs. Nirlon Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR50; 1999(1)BomCR362; 1999(1)MhLj512
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent heard forthwith. 2. The short, but interesting question that arises in this petition is whether the Notification issued under section 4 of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958, has the effect of suspending proceedings pending before any Court, or Tribunal, Officer or Authority or the remedy for enforcement by the undertaking in respect of any right, privilege, obligation or liability accrued or incurred. 3. The question arises thus :- The respondents are admittedly a relief undertaking having been so notified by the State of Maharashtra under section 3 of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Relief Act). The respondents had a claim against the petitioners. There being a provision for arbitration, the Arbitration Clause was invoked and reference was made to an Arbitrator. The reference was made in March, 1996. During the course of the pro...
Hotel Corporation of India Vs. M/S. Motwani (P) Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR356; (1999)1BOMLR10; 1999(1)MhLj88
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. A non-speaking Award dated 27th May, 1996 is the subject matter of the present petition. The petitioners who were constructing a Hotel had given a contract to the respondent for providing music and public address system. The respondents completed the work in respect of about 165 rooms out of 350 rooms. Disputes and differences arose between the parties pursuant to which the respondents in terms of the Arbitration Clause appointed their Arbitrator. The petitioners appointed their Arbitrator. Counterclaims were also filed by the present petitioners. The Arbitrators by the impugned award partly allowed the claim of the respondents and also counterclaims filed on behalf of the petitioners herein.At the time of hearing of the petition on behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the Award is liable to be set aside for the following reasons:-(a) The reference to Arbitration was contrary to the provisions of Clauses 40 and 41 of the agreement. It is contended that...
Gajanan Tanaji Jadhav Since Deceased Through His L.Rs. and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR122; 1999(1)BomCR758
ORDERP.S. Patankar, J.1. The question involved is whether the suit premises can be requisitioned for an indefinite period. The question arises in the following facts :--2. Order of requisition came to be passed in respect of the premises i.e. 2 rooms situated in a chawl, at Tika No. 3, City Survey No. 54/55, situate at Mahagiri, Thane on 19-3-1955 by the Collector, Thane. The premises belong to respondent No. 3. It seems that 2 employees of respondent No. 1 stayed in those premises for few years. However it was vacated and respondent No. 3 got possession thereof in the year 1961. The father-in-law of the respondent No. 3 introduced the appellant as a tenant of these premises at the rent of Rs. 25/- p.m. in 1961 and the appellant went on paying the said rent to the respondent No. 3. Admittedly respondent No. I Government paid no rent to the respondent No. 3 since 1961. For the first time the Circle Officer, Thane issued a notice on 30-10-1980 asking the petitioner to vacate the premises...
Dr. (Mrs.) Jayashree Chandrakant Sangoi and Another Vs. D.P. Mokashi a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR767
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The writ petition arises out of a Judgement rendered by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewadi, Dadar in Criminal Case No. 6115/M.E. of 1985 dated 19th April, 1991 andRevisional order dated 5th October, 1991 passed by the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 133 of 199. Both these orders are under challenge in this writ petition. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner has purchased a flat at 6th floor, as flat No. 34 in City Survey No. 1/118, Lalbaug, Bombay. The said flat was constructed by M/s. Maneklal Anandji Meghaji from whom the petitioner purchased the flat and it is disclosed from the materials available on record that the building licence has to be obtained from the Corporation by the aforesaid builder. After completion of the building, the petitioner was permitted to occupy by the builder and the petitioner also along with other occupiers formed Co-operative Society called 'Meghchh...
C.R. Alimchandani and Others Vs. T.K. Shah and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR176; 2000BomCR(Cri)92; 1999CriLJ2416; 1999(1)MhLj825
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition arises out of complaint filed by respondent No. 1 against petitioners before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, at Esplanade, Bombay bearing Case No. 2167/S/1990 in which it is alleged that the petitioner had committed offence under sections 465 and 466 read with section 34 of I.P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vasni submits that no offence has been disclosed in the complaint and therefore Magistrate ought not to have issued process against the petitioner. In order to appreciate this argument, I have to refer to Para 2 and 3 of the complaint which reads as under '2. Accused No. 1 is the Chairman and Managing Director, and is in overall control of the affairs of said M/s. Stup Consultants Ltd.. Accused No. 2 is the Principal Manager, Finance and Company Secretary and Accused No. 3 is the Joint Secretary and Manager (Finance) all of Stup Consultants Ltd. having their registered office at Bombay. All t...
Sunderlal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2238
G.D. Patil, J.1. The present appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 24th July 1991 rendered in sessions Trial No. 105 of 1991 by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, whereby the accused-appellant Sundarlal has been convicted for the offence punishable under Part II of Section 304 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused Sundarlal has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Part II of Section 304 IPC whereas for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. The accused Sundarlal has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 1991 challenging his conviction and sentence whereas the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 455 of 1991 challenging the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.2. As per prosecution version, ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »