Mumbai Court February 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.
Shri Bernard B. Gomes Alias Peter G. Gomes and ors. Vs. Smt. Prescilla ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR477; (1999)101BOMLR378
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Though this Second Appeal was admitted on various substantial questions of law disclosed in the Memo of Appeal alongwith one regarding non-framing of points for determination by the lower Appellate Court while deciding the appeal, the appeal can be disposed of only on the said substantial question of law regarding non-framing of points for determination by the lower Appellate Court while disposing the appeal.2. The facts in brief are that the respondents herein filed suit for declaration, injunction and restoration in respect of the property bearing Survey Nos. 9/3 and 9/4 of the village of Raia, Salcete, Goa. The Trial Court decreed the suit by Judgment and Decree dated 10th December, 1992. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 11/93 in the Courts of the District and Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, which was heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge at Margao by his Judgment and Order dated 19th October, 1994.3. Sh...
V.H. Patel Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT962Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding classification of Jarda tobacco manufactured by the appellants herein. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad by the impugned order captioned above has held that as a result of the search of the appellants premises on 27-7-1994 packets of jarda containing 8 gms each bearing the brand name 'vijay printers' had been recovered which had been seized. In the impugned order the Commissioner has stated that the goods are covered by the Tariff description under Heading 2404 which includes chewing tobacco including preparations commonly known as Khara Masala, kimam, dokta, zarda, sukha and surti. The Commissioner also referred to the Tariff heading which covers chewing tobacco including preparations thereof and the Commissioner found that this would mean that even where no additives are added, tobacco which is packed and marketed in branded containers would be classifiable under sub-heading 2404.41. Once it is found that t...
Atchut Datta Naik Dalal Vs. Vasant Tilu Shirodkar (Since Deceased) Thr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR526
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The substantial question of law which arises for consideration in this case is whether a Municipal licensee who in consideration of agreeing to pay extra rent, is permitted to extend the leased premises on the adjoining area which is used by another person on payment of 'sopo' charges can such licensee on such extension being done, be allowed to occupy the extended area to total exclusion of such another person. 2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the appellant, who is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 46/84, filed the said suit claiming that he is a businessman having his shop at New Market in the Municipal building known as 'Pavelhao Grande No. 1'; that the said shop was granted on lease to the appellant since 1936 and on southern side of the said shop there is a Margao Station Road whereas on the western side there is an open cemented space which forms part of Margao new Market; that the shop of the appellant has two...
Vijaykumar Baburao Shete Vs. Mallikarjunappa Sidramappa Bidwe and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR368; 1998(3)BomCR341; (1998)2BOMLR283; 1998(2)MhLj312
ORDERA.D. Mane, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order made in First Appeal No. 220 of 1996 whereby the appellants were permitted to withdraw the first appeal but at the same time Civil Application No. 406 of 1997 filed by the present appellants by way of cross-objections as Interveners was disposed of as not surviving. 2. Mr. Katneshwarkar learned Counsel for the appellants submits that even though the appeal was withdrawn, the cross-objections has to be decided and therefore, the impugned order is not proper in law. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to state few facts. On 31-7-1994 a resolution conferring membership on 40 persons by suitable change in the constitution of the trust was passed and in consequence, change report was made to the Assistant Charity Commissioner to approve the Change Report Bearing No. 238 of 1994. In appeal under section 70 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, the Charity Commissioner set-a...
Surendrakumar Tilakkumar Agarwal Vs. Food Corporation of India and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR679
ORDERMr. M.B. Shah, C.J.1. It appears that, (or reasons best known to the Authorities of the Food Corporation of India, they have decided to dispose of the 'D' Category rice to some favoured persons.2. It has been pointed out in the petition that the Food Corporation of Indiapurchases large quantities of foodgrains like wheat, rice and other commodities fromopen market for distribution under what is known as 'Public Distribution System'. Itis also stated that, with a view to maintain the prices of the commodities, the FoodCorporation of India sells in open market the commodities by inviting tenders or by making public invitations at floor price or approved price level, and, when the quantity is surplus with the Corporation, the same is sold by inviting tenders and by publishing in the newspapers, so that proper price is realised or the commodities are sold to as many people as possible, in order to discourage monopoly in a particular commodity. It is the contention of the petitioner th...
Dnyaneshwar Rambhau Barabudhe Vs. Returning Officer/Dy.Collector (Egs) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Bom221; 1998(2)ALLMR102; 1998(4)BomCR578; 1998(1)MhLj718
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J. 1. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the decision given by the Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, on 30th December, 1997, in Election Petition No. 9 of 1997, wherein the election of the respondent No. 3 to the post of Councillor of the Amravati Municipal Corporation has been set aside and the respondent No. 2 has been declared elected in his place being the second candidate securing the highest valid votes in the said election. 3. The petitioner before this Court is original respondent No. 8, who had contested the election for the said post of Councillor from Ward No. 38 of the Amravati Municipal Corporation. 4. The general election of the Municipal Corporation, Amravati was held on 23rd February, 1997. The petitioner and the respondents Nos. 2 to 14 had contested the said election from Ward No. 38, which was reserved for the candidates belongi...
Raghuvirsingh Ramchandra Singh Thakur (Deceased) by Lrs. Vs. Laxmanbha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR489; (1998)100BOMLR641
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By these 3 petitions, petitioners challenges common Order passed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court of Bombay in Appeals No. 683/83, 685/83 and 686/83 and therefore, these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common Judgment.2. Appeals No. 683/83, 685/83 and 686/83 were filed by the petitioners herein challenging the Judgment and decree passed by the Single Judge of the Small Causes Court, Gr. Bombay dated 31/8/83 in RAE Suits No. 3310/70, 3311/70 and 3314/70. Those Suits were filed by the original Respondent No. 1- Laxmanbhai Kurlawalla and Respondent No. 2 - Mavjibhai Kurlawalla, claiming that they are owners of the suit premises which are occupied by the petitioners as their tenants.3. The landlord sought decree of eviction against the tenants mainly on the ground that they are not ready and willing to pay the rent. The Trial Court however, found in favour of the Landlord and decreed the Suit in his favour and directed tenants to vacate the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›