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.
Jivan Service Center Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR441
R.P. Desai, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for hearing.2. In this Appeal, exception is taken to the order dated 21st September. 1998 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay, on Notice of Motion No. 4279 of 1998. The present Appeal is filed by the original Plaintiffs.3. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that they are carrying on the business of dealing in petrol and petroleum products. The Plaintiffs are dealers of the Defendants. The Defendants have appointed the Plaintiffs as their dealers for the retail sale or supply of petrol/diesel/motor oils/grease, etc. The Plaintiffs contend that the Dealership Agreement dated 21st June, 1991 is entered into between the partners of Plaintiffs and Defendants for the purpose of storing, selling and handling the said products, purchased by Plaintiffs from the Defendants on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said Agreement.According to the Plaintiffs, on 21st August, 1998, the Plaintiffs detected that five of the u...
Century Rayon Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC610Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri K.Shiv Kumar, JDR and perused the papers.2. By order-in-original dated 30.5.1989, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kalyan declined to approve revised price list No. 16/87 dated 3.6.1987 said to be effective from 22.4.1986. The Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeal preferred against the above order by the assessee. Hence, the present appeal.3. The facts of the case are clear from the list of dates furnished by the appellant the contents of which are supported by copies of documents produced by the appellant. Appellant, as job worker, was receiving purchase orders from suppliers of raw materials and on that basis manufactured excisable goods and returning the finished products to the suppliers, receiving job charges. Till September, 1985, appellant was paying duty on assessable value arrived at as the sum total of value of raw materials and j...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. M/S. Bharat Construction a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR347
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners on 22nd September, 1990 invited tenders for spot repairs, improvement and widening of major corridors etc. In G-South and G-North Wards within the territorial limits of the petitioners. On 11th October, 1990 the respondent No. 1 submitted its tender at the rate 21.64% below the estimated rates. On 20th December, 1990 the Standing Committee of the petitioners approved the tender submitted by respondent No. 1 vide Resolution No. 1060. On 12th January, 1991 the petitioners issued work order. The rate of Item Mastic Asphalt was calculated at Rs. 737/ - per sq. metre less rebate. A General work order was also issued directing the respondent No. 1 to commence work. The formal contract was signed on 11th January, 1993. Earlier to that on 30th September, 1992 the respondent No. 1 issued notice under Clause 96 of the General Conditions of Contract demanding payment for laying Mastic Asphalt at Rs. 737/- per sq. meter minus 21.64% towards rebate. After sig...
Thakurji Deosthan Vs. Laxman Kacharu Dahat and Other
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR600; 1999(1)BomCR870
ORDERS.D. Gundewar, J. 1. By the order dated 4th and 5th July 1991, this Court had framed the following points:1. Whether the plaintiff proves that there was earlier a partition between the branch of Hemraj predecessor of plaintiff's present Manager and Bastaram - his brother? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the deity in question was the family deity of the branch of the plaintiff's Manager's predecessors; and 3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs present Manager was within limitation? and referred them to the trial Court for recording its finding on those points. Besides the aforesaid points, this Court had also directed the trial Court to enquire and record a finding as to whether respondent No. 2 is dead and if so, whether the suit has abated against him for not bringing his legal representatives on record within time. It is further directed by this Court that after recording its finding on the aforesaid points the trial Court shall remit the same to this Court t...
Shri Tulshidas B. Naik Vs. Dy. Collector and Sub-divisional Officer an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR556; 1999(3)BomCR425
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This petition arises from the order dated 5th June, 1997 passed by the Administrative Tribunal dismissing Land Revenue Appeal No. 20/96 filed by the petitioner against order dated 4th March, 1996 of Deputy Collector and Sub Divisional Officer of Ponda in Case No. 7/28/88-ILL-CONV whereby the Sub Divisional Officer had directed removal of the structure constructed by the petitioner and for recovery of expenditure for such removal from the petitioner as arrears of Land Revenue, on the ground that the petitioner had illegally used the land admeasuring 82 sq. metres from the property bearing Survey No. 50 situated in the village of Cundaim for non-agricultural purposes.2. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the order dated 4th March, 1996 of the Sub Divisional Officer was passed solely on the basis of the report of the Mamlatdar prepared by the concerned Mamlatdar on the inspection of the site to t...
V.K. Mohan (Retd.) Vs. Shri Arun Dattatraya Bhand and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR1
T.K. Chandrashekhara, J.1. This arises out of a summons issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate 23rd Court, Esplanade Bombay against the petition under Sections 420 and 422A of the IPC. Before the learned Magistrate first respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner who 'was at the relevant time General Manager, Indian Navy Colaba, Bombay alleging various mal practices in the management of the canteen by the petitioner. The said complaint was filed on 27th July 1987. On receipt of the complaint the learned Magistrate by his order dated 26.8.87 referred the matter to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After detailed investigation by the police all the charges levelled against the petitioner was found to be unsubstantiated by the police. The police made that report on 7.4.1988. Nevertheless a strange procedure has been adopted by the Magistrate that on 12.9.90 the complainant was examined and recorded his statement and issued the impugned process agains...
Smt. Lata Mahendra Parekh Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR221
N. Arumugham, J.1. By filing this writ of habeas corpus petition, the detenu Smt. Lata Mahendra Parekh who was detained by an order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent vide detention order No. PSA 1097/60/SPL-3(A) dated 3.1.1998 detaining her by virtue of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA) has challenged the detention order along with the grounds and the documents relied upon on record, being Annexures A, B and C which were contemporaneously served on the detenu on 1.5.1998, and prayed for quashing and setting aside the same.2. On specific intelligence on 1.5.1997 the officers of the Air Intelligence Unit, Sahar Airport, Mumbai, Module I, intercepted one lady passenger, the detenu herein at the exit gate of Sahar Airport, Mumbai, Module I, Arrival hall, after both the detenu and her son cleared through the red channel by making a declaration of being within free allowance. The...
BipIn H. Doshi Vs. Jawaharlal Prajapati and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR63; 1999(3)BomCR97
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing first appeal in this Court challenging the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge, 1st Labour Court, Thane under the Workmen's Compensation Act. There is a delay of 61 days in filing the appeal. Two reasons have been given for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The first is that the appellant was in financial difficulties. The second is that he was collecting some information. There are no details given to substantiate any of the grounds urged for condonation of delay. The learned Counsel for the applicant also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others, reported in : 2002(143)ELT249(SC) . The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Banarsidas and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in : [1956]1SCR357 and ...
Smt. Shaheda Sarwan Khan Vs. Sarwar Ahmed Rauf Khan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR599; 1999CriLJ555; I(1999)DMC582
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J. 1. Heard Mr. H. Salim, advocate for the petitioner (the wife) and Mr. Ansari, advocate for the respondent No. 1 (the husband). The respondent No. 1 Mr. Sarwar Ahmed Rauf Khan is also present in Court. 2. This contempt petition has been filed by the wife against the husband for wilful non-compliance of this Court's order dated 3-4-1998. 3. On 3-4-1998 this Court made the wife's notice of motion absolute in terms of prayer (a) with modification that the amount of maintenance to her be read as Rs. 2,000/- per month in place of Rs. 5,000/- and to minor daughter Rs. 1500/- per month in place of Rs. 5,000/-. Thus, by the order dated 3-4-1998 the husband who is defendant in the suit (M.J. Suit No. 4410 of 1997) has been directed to pay an aggregate sum of Rs. 3,500/- per months towards maintenance to the wife for her and their minor daughter with effect from 1st December, 1997.4. The wife has filed the suit seeking decree for divorce of her marriage under Muslim Marriage A...
Shaheda Sarwar Khan Vs. Sarwar Ahmed Rauf Khan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR735; II(2000)DMC195; 1991(1)MhLJ31
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mr. H. Salim, Advocate for the petitioner (the wife) and Mr. Ansari, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 (the husband). The respondent No. 1 Mr. Sarwar Ahmed Rauf Khan is also present in Court.2. This contempt petition has been filed by the wife against the husband for wilful non-compliance of this Court's order dated 3.4.1998.3. On 3.4.1998 this Court made the wife's notice of motion absolute in terms of prayer (a) with modification that the amount of maintenance to her be read as Rs. 2,000/- per month in place of Rs. 5,000/- and to minor daughter Rs. 1,500/- per month in place of Rs. 5,000/-. Thus by the order dated 3.4.1998 the husband who is defendant in the suit (M.J. Suit No. 4410 of 1997) has been directed to pay an. aggregate sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month towards maintenance to the wife for her and their minor daughter with effect from 1st December, 1997.4. The wife has filed the suit seeking decree for divorce of her marriage under Muslim Marriage Act, 1939...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »