Mumbai Court March 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.
Tilakraj Vazirchand Talwar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)763
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel; Mr. Mobile for the petitioner and Miss Kamal for the respondent State.2. This is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings in C.R. No. 104/1996 registered with the General Branch, Crime Branch, Mumbai, where it is alleged that four accused viz. Vinod Bajaj, Vijay Bajaj, Sudhir Bajaj and the present petitioner Tilakraj Talwar have committed forgery in respect of a registered Will dated 6th February 1990 executed by one Purushottamdas Bajaj. The crime is registered, on the complaint of Girdhar Purushottamdas Bajaj lodged on 2nd October 1996, where the date and occurrence of the offence is alleged to be 'during the period from 1989 to 21st August 1993,' Girdhar Bajaj had filed Criminal Application No. 3235 of 1996 for intervention in the present proceedings. However, the same was rejected on December 20, 1996 with the following order :--Per A.C. AGARWAL ...
Shankar Shridhar Kavale and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4491
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellants have challenged the Judgment and order dated 8-3-1996, passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 620 of 1994, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated below :-(i) Under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default to undergo six months RI; and(ii) Under Section 323 read with 34 of IPC to three months RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-each, in default to suffer RI for one month.The substantive sentences of the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.In short, the prosecution case runs as under:-The three appellants are real brothers inter se and the deceased Sadashiv was also their real brother. The informant Pundlik Kavale PW 1 and Sanjay Kavale, PW 3 were the sons of the deceased and Saraswati was wife of the deceased. It is said that the appellants and the deceased lived in contiguous houses.There was...
Parle Beverages Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT184Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The question for decision before the Commissioner was whether sugar syrup which the appellant manufactured for use in the manufacture of aerated waters is liable to duty. The appellant had contended before the Commissioner that the syrup was not marketable and had produced evidence in support. It was also alternatively contended that the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 would apply to the syrup which was consumed captively in the manufacture of beverages.3. The evidence which the appellant cited was letters from dealer of sugar to the effect that sugar syrup was not marketable, and an affidavit of Dr. D.V. Rege, Retired Director, Department of Chemical Technology. The affidavit suggests that syrup below concentration of 65 brix encourages growth of micro organisms and therefore is not stable.Appellant's contention was that the sugar manufactured by it had lower concentration than 65 brix, maximum on that having been found to be 60%. The appellant relied upon the Board's circular ...
System Dynamics Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC357Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of the notice. In the notice the appellants were directed to furnish the compliance report in respect of the stay order dated 3.2.1994. The copy of the notice was also sent to the counsel on record. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants had complied with the stay order. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non-appearance under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and Rule (sic) 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-compliance of the stay order dated 3.2.1994....
Ashok L. Puranik Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR200
A.B. Palkar, J.1. Rule. The learned A.P.P. and the learned Advocate for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 waive service rule. Heard forthwith by consent.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has impugned order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 31st Court, Vikhroli. Mumbai in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 123 of' 1998 on 18.2.1998 directing to return seized cattle on executing bond of Rs. 5000/- to the applicant (Respondent No, 8) who is the owner of the cattle.3. It is not necessary to go into the details of the aforesaid controversy as brief summary of facts would be sufficient. In all 11 buffaloes were seized by Ghatkopar Police Station in L.A.C. No. 2379 of 1997 under Sections 6, 9 and 11 of the Maharashtra Animals Preservation Act, 1977 and contravention of the Rules framed under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The offence was registered in the said case on the complaint of the present petitioner. Even according to the contesting respondent, respondent No...
Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC95
1. The Appellants are manufacturers of Wind Operated Electricity Generators (Wind Mill WOEG). They imported components for the Wind Mill covered by an invoice dated 22-1-1996 from supplier M/s. Wind Master of Belgium and claimed customs duty exemption Notification 64/94 dated 1-3-1994. Wind Mills or WOEG consists mainly of 3 sub-assemblies namely Nacelle, Turbine Controller and Control System. The main parts of Nacelle are Hub, Generator, Gear Box, Brake Caliper, Sensor and Brake Hydraulics, Special Bearings; and the main parts of Turbine Controller are Control Boxes, Resistor Boxes, Power Cable, Control Cable. The control unit is for controlling the operation of WOEG. The goods were exempt on import and it appeared to the Custom house that the Appellants had declared power cables, earthing cables, farm computers, modems, remote, computer programming software as parts of Turbine Controller and claimed that they are covered by Serial No. 3(d) of the Notification 64/94. The components o...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bhuta Brothers and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC80
1. These appeals are directed against the adjudication order dated 29.01.1992 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Mumbai. The facts are common to all these appeals. The Appellants imported consignments of dry dates and sought clearance of the same against Open General License, Appendix 6, List II, Serial No. 12 of Import Policy 1990-93. The dried and wet dates were meanwhile transferred from OGL to Appendix 3A by Public Notice No. 202 (1TC) 91-92 dated 05/09/1991.Further in the Public Notice 204 ITC (PN) 90-93 dated 06.01.1991 it was clarified that in respect of dates (wet and dry) taken out of OGL in terms of earlier Notification, the imports by the eligible importers shall not be allowed except to the extent of irrevocable letter of credit opened and established before the date of said Public Notice No.202 of which shipment are made within a period of 90 clays from the date of public notice. In the present case it was found that the Respondents had opened letters of credi...
Shri Cabriel De Sa Vs. Shri Babuso Pednekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR867
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This Appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4/91 passed on 10th November, 1994, whereby ihe said writ petition filed against the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal confirming the declaration of the respondent No. 1 as mundkar, was dismissed. The only question that is sought to be raised in the present appeal for our consideration is whether a person lawfully residing in a house with the consent of the owner thereof, but admittedly caretaker of the property in which the said house exists cannot be a mundkar within the meaning of the term 'Mundkar' under section 2(p) of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Protection From Eviction of Mundkars) Act, 1975, hereinafter called as the 'Mundkar Act', particularly in view of Clause (iv) of section 2(p) of the Mundkar Act.2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision of this case are that the respondent No. 1 herein filed an application claiming to be mundkar in respect of the ho...
Narayan Laxman Sudhir and Another Vs. Shri Harischandra Babu Sudir and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR870
ORDERR.K. Batta, J. 1. The appellants are original defendants No. 2 and 3 and hereinafter shall be referred as defendants No. 2 and 3. The respondents No. 1 to 10 are original plaintiffs and shall be hereinafter referred as plaintiffs. The respondent No. 11 is original defendant No. 1 and shall be referred hereinafter as defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 12 is original defendant No. 4 and shall be referred as defendant No. 4. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration, damages and permanent injunction against the defendants. This suit was filed in the backdrop of Suit No. 18236/59 in which defendant No. 1's father-in-law was the plaintiff and present defendants No. 2 to 4 were defendants therein. The said suit was for declaration of ownership of the properties which are' also subject matter of the present appeal. In the said suit present defendants No. 2 to 4 had laid their claim on the basis of Gift Deed dated 30th September, 1950. The said suit was decreed in favour of Baburao ...
Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh Vs. G.K.W. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ719Bom
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out during the course of the day: The petitioners in both the petitions have raised the following two questions : (1) Whether in a complaint filed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 for breach of agreement, etc. does the Industrial Court have jurisdiction to go into the issue whether the lock-out is justified? (2) Whether on the material on record would it be said that the lock-out is legal? 2. Considering the nature of the matter and the contentions of the Respondents that the matter is concluded by judgments of this Court, parties have advanced argument at length. This detailed order at the stage of admission is for the aforesaid reason. 3. The Respondent Company by notice dated January 18, 1998 declared its intention to effect lock-out with effect from February 5, 1998. Even before the lock-out was effected work was suspended from Janu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »