Mumbai Court November 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.
Mr. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali Vs. the Superintendent, Thane Central Pri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR163; 1999(1)MhLj334
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit, respondents waive service. By consent heard forthwith. The point in issue in this application is interpretation of section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Section 428 of Cr. P.C. reads as under:'428. Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment-where an accused person has, on conviction , been sentenced to imprisonment for a term not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction, and the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him.'On behalf of the applicant it is contended that even if a set off was given to the applicant in another case in which he has ...
Kadamba Sub-urban Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Provident F ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ624Bom
R.K. Batta, J. 1. The short question which is required to be decided in this petition is whether the petitioner Kadamba Sub-Urban Transport Corporation Limited is a Department/Branch of M/s Kadamba Transport Limited so as to fall within the scope and ambit of Section 2A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the said Act) or that it is a new establishment entitled to infancy period benefit in terms of Section 16(1)(d) of the said Act. We shall first advert to the relevant facts which are necessary for determination of the issue in question.2. The petitioner's case is that Kadamba Transport Limited (hereinafter referred to as KTC for short) a Government Company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on October 15, 1980 and this Company has been operating its buses on long routes within Goa and on other Inter-State routes since the date of its incorporation. The Government noticed that the commuters within a radius of 10 kms. ...
Vansa Mauji Dhadi Vs. Union Territory of Daman, Diu and Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR199
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through the appeal the appellant challenges the Judgment and order dated 7.9.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji camping at Daman, in Sessions Case No. 89 of 1987 convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for an offence under Section 302 of IPC.2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under:On 2.8.87, at about 1 p.m. the informant Bhula Bhagwan P.W. 1 Pemla Chagan and Magan Barsa were on their way to tap toddy. Immediately, behind the informant was Somla. When they had reached near the house of the appellant, the appellant who was sleeping outside his house woke up on the barking of a dog. Perhaps, he was irritated by this and consequently, snatched the vidnu (pointed instrument for tapping toddy) from Somla. Thereafter, he and the acquitted accused Pravin Dhodi caught Somla and the appellant pierced the vidnu on the left side of his stomach, as a consequence of which Somla fell down. Thereafter, the appellant and Pravin Dhodi r...
Shri Ramappa Bhimappa Vs. M/S. Phoenix Mills Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR445; 1999(1)BomCR412; (1999)2BOMLR156; [1999(81)FLR151]; (1999)IILLJ405Bom; 1999(1)MhLj214
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel; Shri Shah for the petitioner and Shri Bapat for the first respondent.2. This is a petition filed by Shri Ramappa Bhimappa, a former employee of the first respondent M/s Phoenix Mills Limited challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. (for short 'Gratuity Act') Under the impugned orders, the petitioner's claim for the alleged balance of gratuity payable namely an amount of Rs. 16,942.50 has been rejected. Though in the application filed by the petitioner under section 4 read with section 7 of the Gratuity Act, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs. 15,171.75. Counsel appearing before me are agreed that as per the petitioner's own claim the total dues worked out to Rs. 33171.75. Admittedly, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 3697.20 on 22nd October, 1990 and he was further paid an amount of Rs. 12,532.05 on 7th April, 1994 towar...
Vasant S/O Keshav Bhosale and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR216
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J. 1. Heard Shri S.B. Talekar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K.G. Patil, learned A.G.P. for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. R.N. Dhorde Patil, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. None appears for respondent No. 4. 2. Rule was granted by this Court on 6-5-1998 and Rule on interim relief was made returnable on 15-6-1998. Thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time. With the consent of the parties, it is decided that the matter should be heard finally and, therefore, it is now heard finally. 3. The petitioners herein are lecturers appointed by respondent No. 5 in respondent No. 6 college. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 were appointed in the year 1987 whereas the petitioner No. 3 was appointed in the year 1992. The petitioners services were approved by the Marathwada University by their orders dt. 27th February, 1989, and 29th March, 1993. It appears that they have completed their probation period and they are confirmed lecturers. It is pertinent to...
Kantilal Hargovindas Shah Vs. Trishul Industries and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR162
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Nobody was present for contesting respondents Nos. 1 and 2.2. This petition has been filed against the order of the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (C.L. Thool) dated 26th April, 1997 by which the process issued against accused Nos. 1 and 2 was recalled and the accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. It was contended by Mr. Mundargi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the questions raised by the accused for discharge were all disputed questions of fact for which the evidence was required to be recorded by the Ld. Magistrate. According to him, once a cheque was issued, there was a presumption that there was primary liability of the accused to honour the cheque and if, according to the accused, there were certain other transactions which wipe out their liabilities then thi...
Naeem Ahmed Shaikh Vs. the Asstt. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR624
D.G. Deshpande, J.During all these years right from 1995, whenever the Petitioner was externed under Section 144 of the said Code, it cannot be said that there was any emergency because the dates of elections, whether Assembly, Parliamentary or Brihan Mumbai, were always notified in advance so also the Ganapati Festival is made known to the public well in advance, and it was, therefore, necessary for the Respondents to give notice to the petitioner for being heard in the matter.1. Heard Mr. Mohite, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned A.P.P., for the State.2. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the provisions of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code are being misused by the Respondents against him only because the Petitioner was facing four criminal cases, and on that basis, every year, right from 1995, the Petitioner was being externed either on account of Assembly Election or Parliamentary Election or the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Elections or on account o...
Sandvik Asia Limited Vs. Motorol (India) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR510
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Gupte, the learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr, Mundargi, the learned counsel for the Respondents, and Mr. M.P. Galeria, the learned A.P.P. for the State.2. The Applicant had filed the complaint being Case No. 3100 of 1996, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpri, Pune. The Respondents had challenged the order of issuance of process before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge (M.N. Patale), Pune, mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the verification statement recorded by the learned Magistrate was not signed by him and, secondly, on the basis of a ruling of the Supreme Court in a case of Electronics Trade and Technology Development Corporation Ltd. Secunderabad v. Indian Technologists and Engineers (Electronics) P. Ltd. and Anr. : 1996CriLJ1692 .3. The Learned Sessions Judge, Pune, upheld the objections raised by the Accused on both grounds and allowed the Revision petitioner and ...
A.G. Narvel Vs. Shri B.i. Nhinglavha and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR196
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule.2. Respondent waives service. By consent, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.3. The Petitioner who is running a lodging home, having a licence granted to him under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 has approached this Court against the order of the Police Commissioner, Thane, whereby by order dated 22nd June, 1998 the licence granted to the Petitioner under the Police Act has been cancelled.4. The short facts are as under:A show cause notice came to be issued to the Petitioner on 19th January, 1998. In the show cause notice, the Petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why his licence should not be cancelled for the following reasons :(1) That on 15th September, 1997 a watchman asked a servant to give hot water to a customer, whereupon the servant and another beat the complainant and the waiter Amush Ansari. A complaint to that effect has been lodged with the Police:(2) That on 16th September, 1998 at 17.00 hours the Police had gone to the Lodge for invest...
Non Woven (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC440Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported a consignment weighing 23.5 metric tonne of polyester staple fibre as supporting manufacturer of M/s. Premier Vinyl Floor Ltd., New Delhi, who were issued quantity based advance licence for import against export to be made of PVC floor covering. The list of items licensed for import had ten items. Item 10 reads as follows: The appellant imported a consignment of polyester (non woven) felt.Subsequently, appellant imported a consignment of polyester staple fibre. Customs authorities refused to accept the licence and therefore denied that the benefit of Notification 220/90 will not apply. The reason in the order of the Assistant Collector and that the Collector (Appeals) confirming that order is that the word "or" occurring between each of the items indicates that the appellant could import any one of the products in item 10, and he could not import more than one in combination.3. Arguments were advanced by both sides as to the scope of the term "or" occurring i...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »