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.
Savanta Anna Pol and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR213
Vishnu sahai, J.1. Through this appeal the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 25.3.1991 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No. 73/89 convicting and sentencing them to undergo 2 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo 2 months R.I.2. In short the prosecution case is as under:The deceased Narayan Santram Sonawane was the brother of Namdev Santram Sonawane P.W. 6 and father of Shantaram Sonawane P.W. 1. On 6.3.1989 Laxmibai the wife of Namdev Sonawane lodged an FIR at Ichalkaranji Police Station alleging therein that Narsing Savanta Pol son of appellant Savanta Pol alongwith one Mahadev Pol committed rape on her daughter Sharawati. On the basis of the said FIR a case under Section 376 of IPC was registered against the said persons. On this score there was enmity between Namdeo Sonawane and his family on the one hand and the four appellants on the other. It may be mentioned that the appellant Rajesh Pol and V...
Anz Grindlays Bank and Others Vs. the Directorate of Enforcement and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR291; 1999(1)BomCR324; 1999CriLJ2970; 1999(1)MhLj65
ORDERAshok A. Desai, J.1. The 1st petitioners in both the petitions are Banking Company. Others are their officials. The Reserve Bank of India authorised the Companies to deal with foreign exchange under section 6 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Precisely the Act 1973). According to the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement, the Companies by making certain credits contravened sections 8 and 9. The Directorate therefore, resorted to section 68 and served on the petitioners various Notices purported to be under section 50 read with section 51 (Show Cause Notice), and under proviso to section 61 (Opportunity Notice), of the Act 1973. Petitioner claimed Writ of Prohibition against the proceedings to be initiated pursuant to these Notices. Dr. Chandrachud, the learned Additional Solicitor General questioned the tenability of petitions being premature. Having regard to the nature of challenge, we, however, proceed to deal with the grounds on merit. 2. Mr. Venugopal, the learned...
National Forum for Consumer Education (Rashtriya Upbhoktta Shikshan Sa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR28; 1999(4)BomCR45
ORDERA.A. Halbe, President1. All these appeals arise out of Complaint Nos. 55, 75, 76, 78 all of 1995 and Complaint Nos. 50 and 62 of 1995 and Complaint No. 23 of 1995. In all these complaints, the farmers who had sowed hybrid cotton seeds of AHH 468 variety in their respective fields had failed to get any cotton crop on account of adulterated seeds. The seed variety was produced and marketed by M/s. Parth Seeds, Dabhoi, District: Baroda (Gujarat). The District Forum in all these complaints did not accede to the request of the farmers for award of compensation and rejected all these complaints under the pretext that the report of the Grievance Committee, Akola District which is in charge of supervision of seeds was not acceptable, that the seeds were not forwarded to the Laboratory for test and that the entire procedure to project the loss of crop was legally infirm on account of non-observance of procedure required for establishing the fact that the seeds were adulterated and therefor...
Balasaheb Abasaheb Farate Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR170; II(1999)DMC717
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 29-10-1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 88/94, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :-- i) Under section 302 I.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo 1 year's R.I. : ii) Under section 498-A I.P.C. to suffer 2 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I.: The substantive sentences of the appellant were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In short the prosecution case is that the appellant was married to the deceased Bebi on 20-5-1987 in village Dokarai, Taluka Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. After the marriage the deceased started staying with the appellant in his house in village Pimpalsuit. Out of the wedlock two children were born. On 5-11-1993 the appellant asked Bebi to go to her father's house for bringing money to celebrate Diwal...
Krishnaji Raghuvendra Kulkarni Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the Ci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR271
1. By this Writ Petition, Petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner vide Circular dated 19th February, 1987.2. The facts giving rise to this Writ Petition briefly, are as follows:3. Grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that respondent No. 2-Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation vide Notification dated 19th February, 1987 allowed the retired employees of Pune Municipal Corporation who were in receipt of Provident Fund benefits to switch over to the Pensionary Scheme by submitting an option. Petitioner submitted such an option. Petitioner was working in the Army from 1941 to 1949. On September 20, 1951, petitioner joined Pune Municipal Transport Undertaking. From 26th September, 1952, he started working continuously with the Transport Undertaking. He worked for more than 20 years. He retired on October 5, 1972. At the time of his retirement, he received the retirement benefits which consisted of Provid...
Rambhai Nathabhai Waghela and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR446
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By the above Writ Petitions, Petitioners seek to challenge the validity of the Notification dated 4.8.1995 passed by the Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1956.2. Since both the Petitions raise common question of law, they are being disposed of together. For the sake of convenience the facts in Writ Petition No. 616 of 1996 are reproduced hereinbelow.3. The Petitioner is the consumer of several consumer items defined as 'Food' under Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the said act, 1954'). By the impugned Notification, the Central Government has sought to amend the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 by incorporating Rule 49(5)(vi) whereby it is inter alia provided that the use of second hand tin containers for package of edible oils and fats would render the food unfit for human consumption. According to the Petitioner, as per the prevailing pract...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Maksons Fine Chem P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT32Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether by filing a declaration specified in Rule 57G before the Range Superintendent the requirements of that rule has been satisfied or not. In the order impugned in the appeal Collector (Appeals) has relied upon circular of the Board for providing that circular does not suffer.2. The ground in the appeal is that the Rule 57G specifies the Assistant Collector or the authority with whom the declaration is to be filed and that therefore declaration filed before the Range Superintendent does not meet this requirement.3. We have heard the departmental representative. Respondent absent and unrepresented.4. The Board has issued a circular specifically making a declaration before the Superintendent acceptable, the context of the circular was communicated by trade notice to the assessee, it is not settled that such circular is binding upon the department. Therefore the assessee's declaration filed before the Superintendent has to be accept...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Soujesh Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT461Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the decision dated 24-12-1993 whereunder the Collector (Appeals) has directed the Assistant Collector to adopt a pattern indicated by the Collector (Appeals) in the earlier order.2. The respondents were manufacturers of paints and varnishes falling under Chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff. The respondents had filed various price lists from February, 1989 where they have claimed certain deductions from the price on account of various post manufacturing expense charges such as trade discounts, cash discounts surcharge and sales tax, freight, insurance etc. Assessments were made provisionally in terms of Rule 9B of the Rules. There was no evidence produced by the assessee. Therefore, the Assistant Collector, by order dated 1-1-1993, approved the price list finally disallowing deductions.The assessees went in appeal to the Collector (Appeals), who, by his order dated 21-1-1993 directed the Assistant Collector to finalise the case on the basis of the decis...
Ramrakh R. Bohra, Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas623(Bom)
1. The present group of petitions seek to impugn an order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the first respondent herein, directing the petitioners, who are stock brokers, not to undertake any fresh business as brokers till the inquiry proceedings, which have been initiated against them, under regulation 28 of the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992, and regulation 13 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Markets) Regulations, 1995, are completed and further decisions are taken thereon by the first respondent. The order is passed on October 30, 1998, and was directed to come into effect from November 2, 1998.2. In these petitions, a chamber summons has been taken out on behalf of Shri Jasmin B. Shah, seeking intervention in the petitions and for permission to make submissions on the merits of the case. The said intervener had earlier filed, in this court, Writ Petition No. 1156 of 1998 seeking dire...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajaram Bandekar and Sons (Shipping) Pv ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR628(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'), has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenses incurred on stevedoring charges and port dues for loading and unloading iron ore to export it are to be allowed as weighted deduction under Section 35B ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the payment of ex gratia amounting to Rs. 1,58,828 made to the Income-tax Act and entitled for deduction for the assessment year 1977-78 ?' (sic)2. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the controversy in this question stands concluded by the decision of this court in Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd. v. C...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »