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.
Shegar Kaveriappa Kaunder and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR179; 1999BomCR(Cri)179
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through these appeals the appellants challenge the Judgment and Order dated 31-8-94 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Since both these Appeals arise out of the same set of facts and a common Judgment, we are disposing them off by one Judgment. 3. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :- The deceased Samuel used to purchase pepsi cold drink from Raman Nadar (P.W. 2) who was residing in Room No. 89 at Lal Bahadur Shastri Nagar, Dharavi, Bombay-17. On 30-5-90 at about 7.30 p.m. Samuel came to Raman Nadar, took his belongings and told him that he was leaving for his native place the same night. Thereafter, he went away and came to the house of Adilaxmi Naidu (P.W. 6) the wife of appellant Algarswami in Dharavi at Dhorwada. Adilaxmi was knowing him because he was brother-in-law of...
Air India Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR428; (1999)IILLJ93Bom
A.V. Savant, J. 1. Heard both the learned counsel; Mr. Bharucha for the petitioner and Mr. Vashi for Respondent Nos. 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 November 30, 1994 passed by the Controlling Authority-Respondent No. 2, and (ii) the order dated June 30, 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 Nos. 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 findings re...
Ramchandra Balu Undure and ors. Vs. Chief Officer, Ichalkaranji Munici ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR159]; (1999)IIILLJ1405Bom
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. By this Writ petition, Petitioners seek benefit of higher grade i.e. Rs. 335-680 given to clerks working in the Municipal Council, Ichalkaranji in four Departments, namely, Establishment Clerks, Committee Clerks, Council Clerks and Court Clerks. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows. 3. Petitioners are clerks working in Respondent No. 1 allegedly refused to prepare Seniority list in respect of the Clerks which gave rise to industrial dispute which came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal vide Reference (IT.) No. 479 of 1975. Demand No. 11 under the said Reference dealt with fixation of Seniority List of clerks working in the Council. By Award dated April 12, 1978, the above Reference came to be disposed of and the Tribunal directed the Council to draw a Seniority List of every year and to promote the Clerks as far as possible according to the Seniority List but after taking into account merit and past record of the workers. It is t...
Skoda Afonso (Deceased) Through L.Rs. Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ748; 1999(2)ALLMR549
R.K. Batta, J.1. The original claimant Dr. Skoda Afonso had filed a claim petition for seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident which took place on 17.10.1989. This claim petition was dismissed for default on 7.2.1992. An application for restoration was filed by the original claimant along with condonation application on 24.3.92. During the pendency of this restoration application the claimant died on 26.5.1992. The legal representatives of the claimant filed an application on 24.8.1992 to bring them on record. After granting the condonation application the Claims Tribunal dismissed the application for bringing the legal heirs on record as well as the application for restoration vide impugned order dated 30.8.1994 which is subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition.2. The learned advocate Mr. M.B. da Costa, appearing on behalf of the legal representatives of the original claimant, has placed before us three submissions, namely:(i) That legal re...
Prakash Maruti Kadam Vs. the City and Industrial Development Corporati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR528; (1999)101BOMLR554
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this Writ Petition, Petitioner seeks to challenge the letter dated 25.1.1989 and also the impugned remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports of the Petitioner for the years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. By the Writ Petition, Petitioner inter alia seeks redesignation/promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 1.4.1987. Petitioner claims difference in salary for the aforestated period with all consequential benefits.2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that, in the present matter, Petitioner has been appointed as an Assistant Engineer with effect from 1.7.1989. However, Petitioner claims that he ought to have been redesignated as an Assistant Engineer from 1.4.1987 and accordingly Petitioner claims the above relief in the Writ Petition.3. The facts giving rise to this Writ Petition briefly, are as follows.4. Petitioner was employed by CIDCO as a Sub-Engineer on 1.3.1982 on probation for one year. He was confirmed on 1.3.1983. Under the Board Reso...
G.E. Plastics India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT344Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These five appeals arise out of two orders of Commissioner (Appeals). Since these have a common issue and relate to the same assessee they are being disposed of in this single order.2. The common issue in all these 5 appeals is the eligibility as input of rejected final products returned to the Modvat user assessee. In all these cases the Commissioner accepted that rejected final goods could be brought back as inputs, but observed that the description of the inputs in the declaration does not match with the description of the final products. He observed that whereas inputs were Polycarbonate Resin, Polybutylene Terephthalate and Polyphenylene Oxide; the returned final products were Polycarbonate Plastics (in primary form), Polybutylene Terephthalate Plastics (in primary form), and Polyphenylene Oxide Plastics (in primary form). On this observation he declined the benefit to the assessees.3. We have heard Shri Willingdon Christian, the learned Advocate for the Appellants and Shri A....
Mehta Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT343Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application is for early hearing. We find that the similar application had been turned down by the Tribunal by order dated 3-8-1998. The present application is in the nature of modification of that order and we treat it as such. "The only reason seeking for early hearing is that the goods have been ordered to be confiscated with a redemption fine. This is not a case of absolute confiscation and the differential duty is only Rs. 20.00 lacs. We therefore do not see any reason to hear the appeal out of turn especially having regard to the amount involved including stay applications. Applicant can move fresh application when the position of the Tribunal improves." 3. Shri D.H. Shah, learned Advocate, submits an affidavit filed by Naresh R. Mehta, the sole proprietor of the appellant firm. In the affidavit it has been claimed that the report of M/s. SGS India Ltd. shows the goods to be of secondary in quality. This report is made after conducting chemical, economical and physical t...
Vijay Eknath Potdar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR25; 1999(1)BomCR319; (1999)1BOMLR6; 1999(1)MhLj536
ORDERAshok Agarwal, J.1. The order passed by the Joint Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department of the State of Maharashtra on 24th June 1997 terminating the services of the petitioner as a Judge of the Labour Court is impugned in the present petition.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Judge of the Labour Court by an order passed by the State Government on 4th January 1993. The appointment was on probation for a period of 2 years. The order provides that during the probation period, if the petitioner fails to attain the expected quality ofwork and if his work or conduct is found improper or unbecoming his services will be liable to be terminated. His appointment is of purely temporary nature and the same can be terminated without assigning any reason. The order of appointment further provides that on his completing the first year of the probation period, he will be sanctioned the first increment and on his completing the probation period satisfactorily, subsequent incremen...
Lotus Investments and Securities Vs. Promod S. Tibrewqal and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR375
ORDERP. S. Patankar, J.1. Both these petitions can be disposed of by this common order since they involve the common questions. They are between the same parties.2. These petitions are filed challenging the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator dated 24-5-1997 in Arbitrations Petition No. 191 of 1997. The claim made by the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 12,54,542.93 came to be rejected. In Petition No. 193 of 1997 the claim made by the petitioner of Rs. 11,62,276.69 came to be rejected.3. Some time in the middle of 1995 respondent approached the petitioner for effecting the transactions in shares and securities on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner is a share broker and member of National Stock Exchange. It seems that the respondent was holding 2 accounts with the petitioner one Zenith Investments and other Trading Account Zenith Investments. It seems one was for delivery based transactions and the other for squaring up transactions. Some time in July-August 1996 the respondent su...
Nilkanth S/O Sambhuppa Ajbe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR81; 1999(2)BomCR30
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J. 1. One Mr. Mule who was working as Head Master in respondent No. 4- Society's School in Buldana district in the name and style of Shri Sarasvati Vidyalaya, Deulgaon Sakkarsha and that Head Master came to be removed from the post. This gave rise for an action to appoint somebody else in his place. That is why the present petitioner came in picture as he came to be appointed in place of said Mr. Mule. This happened on 25-6-1975 and he continued to be so till the order came to be passed questioning his appointment and directing the Society to recover the amount from him. The Society came before this Court against that order by way of a writ petition, where a direction came to be issued directing the said authorities to give an opportunity of being heard both the said Society as well as to the present petitioner, who was one of the petitioners in the said earlier petition. The Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati, carried out the order given by thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »