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.
Verma and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs (G)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC541
1. This appeal was filed on 12-8-1998 and simultaneously an application for early hearing was made. Vide order dated 28-8-1998, the case was posted for hearing today.2. We have heard Shri S.P. Mathew, the ld. advocate for the appellants and Shri B.K.Suman, the ld. DR for the Revenue.3. The Commissioner in the impugned order suspended the CHA licence held by the appellants in terms of Regulation 21(2) of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984 on the ground that the CHA had permitted their licence to be operated by other persons for pecuniary gain, that they had failed to exercise proper control over their employees and that they had interfered with the investigations. The claims made before us are two fold. Firstly, it is argued that the order of the Commissioner suffers from denial of natural justice, in as much as, no notice was given to the CHA for explaining his position before the Commissioner. On merits, it is claimed that the allegation that certain documents were removed by the CH...
Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR753; [1999]235ITR333(Bom)
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By these references under section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1962, the Maharashtra Sales-tax Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of the assessee :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of section 8(6) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1962 the Tribunal was right in coming to conclusion (sic. assessee) that the dealer is not entitled to depreciation on the value of land which is cultivated by him?'2. The assessee, Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd. is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The entire share capital of the assessee Company is held by the Government of Maharashtra. The assessee Company was formed with a view of undertaking cultivation of land rendered surplus as a result of implementation of the Maharashtra Agricultural (Ceilings and Holdings) Act, 1961. The main activity of the...
Dinesh Tulshidas Sheth and Another Vs. Hemchandra Ganpat Desai and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR237; 1999(1)MhLj749
ORDERP.S. Patankar, J.1. The question involved in this second appeal is whether the agreement dated 11th May, 1975 can be said to be void in view of section 23 of the Contract Act.2. The premises are two rooms situated at Alibag. They are covered by the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act,1947 (hereafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act). They were owned by one Laxmibai Rajaram Velhal etc. and the respondents were staying in those rooms since 1968 as licensees. On 11th May, 1975, an agreement took place between the owners of the property i.e. the appellants herein and the respondents in respect of those two rooms under which it was agreed that they shall stay in the premises till the end of February, 1976 free and vacate thereafter. This property was purchased by the appellants on 15th May, 1975. They issued notice to the respondents on 1st March, 1976 to give back the possession to them in view of the agreement dated 11th May, 1975. As the respo...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Iqbal Mohammed Memon and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR752
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel; Shri Page for the petitioner State of Maharashtra, Shri Adhik Shirodkar for respondents No. 1 to 7 and Shri Satpute for respondent No. 8.2. This is the petition filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking to challenge the Order dated 20-10-1997, passed under section 68-I of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'N.D.P.S. Act') by the Competent Authority, appointed by the Central Government under section 68-D of the N.D.P.S. Act. Under the said order, out of 11 properties which are mentioned at Exhibit A-1 to the petition, four properties mentioned at Sr. Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been held to be illegally acquired within the meaning of Clause (g) of section 68-B of the N.D.P.S. Act and the said properties have been ordered to be forfeited to the Central Government, free from all encumbrances, as contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 68-I of the said Act. In respect of the property at Sr. No. 6 in Exhibit ...
Ram Gopal Waghdhare Vs. Sudhir Ram Waghdhare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR15
ORDER1. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are found guilty of having committed contempt of the order of the City Civil Court dated 13.12.1996 passed on Notice of Motion No. 3493 of 1996 in S.C. Suit No. 3829 of 1996 and the High Courts order dated 5.5.1997 passed on Appeal from Order No. 96 of 1997, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are therefore, sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each.2. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are also found guilty of contempt however in view of the apology tendered by them and in view of the affidavit filed by them that they are not staying in the suit premises the contempt notice against them is discharged.3. Contempt Notice issued against respondent No. 5 is discharged.4. The order of sentence of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 shall remain suspended for a period of eight months from today on the request of the learned Counsel for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. After the period of eight months the suspension shall automatica...
Bhavani Shankar B. Paliwal Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR551
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the brother of the detenu Ramesh B. Paliwal @ Ramesh Chandra Paliwal, seeks to challenge the detention order dated 31.5.1996 passed by the second respondent Mr. K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act). The detention order along with the grounds of detention bearing the same date was served on the detenu on 16.12.1997.In order to dispose off this petition, in our view it would not be necessary to advert to the prejudicial activities of the detenu detailed in the grounds of detention.2. We have heard Mr. Maqsood Khan for the Petitioner, Mr. R.M. Agarwal for the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mrs. V. K. Tahilramani, Public Prosec...
Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR112; 1999(1)MhLj209
ORDERM.B. Shah, C.J.1. Both these Appeals can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.2. These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 23rd April 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Suits Nos. 3285 of 1995 and 3286 of 1995. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the appellant's (original plaintiff) tender for the work of concreting of R.C. Marg, Chembur, Bombay, was accepted by the B.M.C. in the year 1992. As large amount was locked up by respondent No. 1-Corporation, the appellant (original plaintiff), by his letter dated 16-5-1994, addressed to respondent No. 3, requested for referring the dispute to arbitration. As the said request was not acceded to, the aforesaid Arbitration suits were filed by the appellant (original plaintiff) with a prayer for referring the matter to arbitration. The learned Single Judge, after considering clauses upon which the reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant, arrived at the...
Dayaram Tulshiram Rajguru Vs. Shri Mamasaheb Alias Balasaheb Bhimrao J ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR58; 1999(1)BomCR212
ORDERY.S. Jahagirdar, J.1. In these five writ petitions, a common question of law is involved and hence, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.2. Writ Petition No. 986 of 1995 was admitted by this Court on 7th of March 1995 and interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (b) thereof was granted. By the said interim relief, further proceedings in Municipal Appeals before the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, were stayed. Placing reliance on admission of this petition, number of other matters involving similar question of law were admitted and interim reliefs were granted in those matters. Those matters were mentioned before us on 6th October, 1998 for being listed in view of the observations made by the learned Single Judge (S.H. Kapadia, J.) in the order dated 14th of June 1996. This order was passed by Justice Kapadia while dealing with Civil Application No. 1455 of 1996. The said order reads as follows :--'In the present writ petition a very important question...
NitIn Nagorao Mohod and Others Vs. Amravati Municipal Corporation and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR463; 1999(2)BomCR1
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. These two petitions have been filed by the citizens residing within the local limits of the Municipal Corporation of Amravati, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Act of awarding the contract in favour of the respondent M/s. Ideal Road Builders for the collection of octroi for the year 1998-99 and to direct the respondent No. 1 Municipal Corporation, Amravati to recall the tender.2. Initially the petitions were filed at the stage when the contract was not executed in favour of the respondent M/s. Ideal Road Builders, but afterinviting the tenders as per the notice dated 16th May, 1998, the negotiations were going on in between the Commissioner of the respondent Municipal Corporation and M/s. Ideal Road Builders. However, on presentation of these petitions, the notice before admission was issued on 8th June, 1998, which was made returnable in the next week. Meanwhile, the respondent Municipal Corporation had filed its submissions on 18th ...
Shivgonda Mallappa Huchgond Vs. Ramgonda B. Santi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1222
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order in revision passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Criminal Revision Application No. 131 of 1980. The aforesaid Revision Application arises from the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Math in Summary Criminal Case No. 46 of 1988 passed on 15th June, 1988 whereby the respondent Nos. 1 to 11 were convicted under Section 500 of the I.P.C.2. The allegation against them was that they have made defamatory statement against the petitioner before the Charity Commissioner. After trial, the learned Magistrate has found that the statement given by respondent Nos. I to 11 before the Charity Commissioner brings down and damage reputation of the petitioner and, therefore, committed offence under Section 499 of I.P.C. Against that Judgment of the Magistrate, the revision was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to11 in which the impugned order was passed by the Rev...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »