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.
Vave Potge Shenvai Vividh Vikas Karyakari Society Ltd. Vs. State of Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR246; 1999(1)BomCR451; (1999)1BOMLR576; 1999(1)MhLj95
ORDERV.P. Tipnis, J.1. Rule.Shri Sonawane waives service on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and Shri Gangal, the learned Counsel waives service on behalf of respondent No. 5. By consent rule heard forthwith.2. By this petition filed by Vave Potage Shenvai Vividh Vikas Karyakari Society Ltd., the notification dated 2-9-1998 issued by the State Government under section 14(3) proviso of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, J963 extending the term of office of the Roha Agricultural Produce & Marketing Committee till 27-9-1999 is impugned.3. The ground on which Shri Gavnekar, the learned Counsel for thepetitioner challenged the legality of the order is that provisions of the Actclearly state that the members of the Market Committee not being the Committee constituted for the first time shall hold office for a period of five years.The proviso states that where the general election of members of the Committee could not be held for reasons beyond the control of the...
Ahmed Khan Alikhan Deshmukh Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR158; 1999BomCR(Cri)158; 1999(1)MhLj401
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard Advocate for the petitioner/applicant and Mr. Patwardhan for respondent No. 2/C.B.I. The petitioner is accused No. 2 in a trial which he is facing vide Special Case No. 47 of 1997 and which was at the relevant time pending on the file of Smt. R.S. Dalvi, the Special Judge. The petition is for transfer of the case from the file of Smt. R.S. Dalvi, the Special Judge to any other Special Judge of Greater Bombay. 2. The Counsel for the petitioner contended that however, by now the assignment of the Judges have changed and Smt. R.S. Dalvi is no longer dealing with the present case, and therefore, he did not press for his prayer for transfer of the case. 3. He, however, contended that while witness of the prosecution was being examined, Smt. R.S. Dalvi, the Special Judge repeatedly intervened inthe matter and adopted a role of prosecutor and in support of his contention he drew my attention to the questions put to the witness P.W. No. 1 by the Court (Record p...
Kalpana Rajendra Pawashe Vs. Rajendra Jaysingh Pawashe and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR240
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Advocate for respondent No. 1 and learned APP for the State. Nobody is present for the applicant. The wife/applicant has challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara [S.G. Hartalkar] dated 6th April, 1994 by which the respondent/husband's revision was allowed and the wife's petition for maintenance was dismissed on the ground that the wife's petition was hit by the principles of res judicata.2. I have gone through the entire record and it appears that wife had filed maintenance application bearing No. 244 of 1988, but the same was dismissed on merits. Thereafter she filed Criminal Revision before the Sessions Court vide Criminal Revision Application No. 232 of 1989. But the same was withdrawn on 17.1.1991. However, prior to that, the wife filed fresh application for maintenance before the Magistrate vide Misc. Application No. 273 of 1990 She succeeded in the said application and the husband has challenged the said order before the Sessions Ju...
Bharat Radiators Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1144Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant in this case, sent inputs such as copper bars, unwrought zinc bars etc. Under Rule 57-F (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to their job workers for converting into Solders, Copper and Brass foils etc. There was difference in weight of the inputs sent and products received. On such short receipt, duty was demanded. Before the Asstt. Collector, a plea was made that there was burning loss which was invisible loss and in terms of Rule 57-D, credit could not be varied on the waste, refuse or the byproducts arisen during the manufacture of the final products. The Asstt. Collector, in his order observed that he had asked the range Supdt. to ascertain exact loss which the range officer was unable to do. He, therefore, assumed the loss at 1% and confirmed demand on the remainder. The Collector (Appeals), in his order held the action of the Asstt. Collector as arbitrary. He, however, discussed the provisions of Rule 57-F(3) and observed that the waste so arising during the m...
Air India Ltd. Vs. the Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR426; [1999(81)FLR900]
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel Mr. Bharucha for the petitioner and Mr. Vashi for respondents No. 9,11,17,21 and 22.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is by the employer Air India Limited challenging the two orders viz. (i) Order dated 30th November 1994 passed by the Controlling Authority-respondent No. 2, and (ii) the Order dated 30th June, 1995, passed by the Appellate Authority respondent No. 1 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'Gratuity Act'). There were separate orders passed by respondent No. 2 Controlling Authority though the issues involved were identical. Under the said orders, the respondents No. 3 to 26 employees were held eligible to recover the amount of their gratuity payable in accordance with the provisions of the Gratuity Act, together with interest at the rate of 10 % per annum on the said amount payable from different dates till the date of payment. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the finding...
Shri J.M. Fernandes and Others Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR423; [2000(84)FLR657]; 1999(3)MhLj627
ORDERPer R.K. BATTA, J.1. The petitioners were working as Head Surveyors/ Classers in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 in the Land Survey Department, where they were declared surplus. The petitioners along with other surplus Head Surveyors, were given option to either work in a lower post in the said Department, that is the Land Survey Department or to opt for deployment in some other Government Departments. The petitioners opted for deployment in Irrigation Department to the posts of Field Surveyor, which posts were in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. Thus the said posts were in lower scale than the scales in which the petitioners were working prior to being declared as surplus. However, in terms of Rule 4 of the Redeployment of Surplus Staff Rules (hereinafter called as 'the said Rules'), the pay scales of the petitioners were protected. This protection of pay was denied to the Surplus Head Surveyors who were absorbed in the lower posts in the Land Survey Department, as a result of whic...
Suresh S/O Kashiramji Durugkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR277; 2000(4)BomCR194; 1999(3)MhLj374
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. The petitioner faced departmental proceedings and was meted out punishment under Rule 102 of the Service Rules of the respondent-Agricultural Market Produce Committee. 2. Later on when time came for promotion, he did not get it though, according to the petitioner, he was sufficiently senior for at least being considered. 3. When made a representation against this incident, the petitioner was told that Regulation 46, governing the promotion provides that if he has been punished in a department proceeding, for the purposes of promotion, heloses seniority and will have to be placed at the bottom of seniority list. This rule has been quoted on page 7 of the petition. The relevant portion is as under: 'Employee who is punished under any of the punishment specified in Rule 102 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967, shall be put at the bottom of the seniority list, even if he is seniormost.' 4. The submission made on behalf of the pe...
Pandurang W. Patil Vs. Chetna's H.S. College of Commerce and Economics ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ941Bom
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated February 21, 1981 passed by the Respondent No. 1 -College with whom he was employed as a Senior Clerk. The suspension order had been issued against the petitioner due to his alleged involvement in the forgery and defalcation made in the store which was being run in the college campus by the Society formed by the students and employees of the Respondent No. 1-College.2. The petitioner was appointed, initially, as Library Assistant on July 7, 1970 by the Respondent No. 1 college. He was promoted from time to time and lastly, when he was suspended, was working as a Senior Clerk with the Respondent No. 1-college. It is the case of the petitioner that while being employed in the said college he was also working in the store which was being run by the Society formed by the employees and students of the college. When the college found that the petitioner, in conspiracy with the then Princi...
Prakash Dattu Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ431
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 27-5-1991 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Code No. 154/90 convicting and sentencing him to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo 1 month's R.I. for the offence under Section 304(II), I.P.C.2. In short the prosecution case is as under :On 9-7-1990 the deceased Sanjay asked the wife of the appellant whether she had taken tea. At this the appellant became infuriated. At about 4.30 p.m. the same day the appellant pulled Sanjay towards his house, took him inside and assaulted him with slipper. He asked Sanjay to ' touch the feet of his wife. This incident was seen by Sunanda Kamble P.W. 6, the sister of Sanjay.At about 5.30 p.m. Sanjay came out from the house of the appellant. After some time Sunanda Kamble went to the house of Sharada Kamble P.W. 1 and Champabai Kamble P.W. 2, the aunt and mother of Sanjay respectively to inform...
Vora Warehousing (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)70ITD518(Mum.)
1. Question at issue in this appeal is whether rents realised for a godown said to have been let out during the course of its business transactions and therefore whether it represents business income or income from house property.2. The assessee has filed appeal for the assessment year 1992-93 which is the first year of its assessment. The assessee filed 27 pages of the Paper Book before the Tribunal. Amongst the pages 22 to 27 represent the relevant Articles of Association of the assessee company. The main object of the company as mentioned in its Memorandum of Association is found at page 22 according to which its main object, inter alia, is to establish, build, construct, purchase or otherwise acquire take on lease or sub-lease, run, conduct and operate warehouses, cold storage, dry storage and to provide facilities for storage of commodities, articles, things, preparation of all kinds and description, storage, godowns etc. It is clear that constructing inter alia of warehouses and...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »