Mumbai Court April 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 Sitaram Shankar Rode and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR449
A.P. Shah, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th July, 1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1984 whereby the appellants have been convicted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and are sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and also convicted under Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and are sentenced to RI for two years. The substantive sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as it turns out from the evidence on record is that appellant No. 1 Sitaram and appellant No. 2 Hirabai are brother and sister. The appellant No. 1 was working as a peon in the United Commercial Bank at Ahmednagar, The appellant No. 2 was working as a sweeper in Pune Camp branch of Bank of Baroda and she was residing along with her sister Leelabai and daughter Kalavati in Kasewadi slum situate at Bhavani Peth, Pune. Deceased Narhari was...
Stovec Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT328Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs. 2,99,242.48. Shri Jagesha, the ld. Counsel submits that the issue relates to classification of their product which goes by the description soft ferrite components/ products. The applicants would claim that these products would be correctly classifiable under Heading 8548.00 of CETA, whereas the department has initiated proceedings and decided the classification of the goods under 8505.00. The ld. Counsel submitted that the department has wrongly taken the goods to be as permanent magnet.2. Shri V.K. Puri, the ld. SDR for the department pointed out that prima facie the issue is in favour of the department.3. After hearing both the sides, we find that no prima facie case could be made out for totally dispensing with the pre-deposit because the issue is arguable. Therefore, for the purpose of hearing the appeal, we direct the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) on or before 15-5-1998, ...
Rathi Industrial Equipment Co. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC250Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the common order in original No. 22 and 23/91 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, confirming the demands proposed in two show cause notices dated 26.10.1983 and 1.12.1983.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of pollution control equipment was paying duty at the invoice price. Show cause notice dated 26.10.1983 was issued for the period from September, 1982 to May, 1983 alleging that appellant had received advances from various customers and should have included in the assessable value amount equal to the notional interest on the amount of advances but had not done so and proposing demand of differential duty on the element of notional interest. Similarly, show cause notice dated 1.12.1983 was issued proposing demand of differential duty on the same count for the period from October, 1979 to August, 1982. Though appellant resisted the notices, the Additional Collector confirmed the demands.3. We have perused copies of the...
Sonia Senroy of Mumbai Vs. Amit Senroy of Mumbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Bom302; 1998(3)ALLMR48; 1998(3)BomCR829; I(1999)DMC233; 1998(3)MhLj726
ORDERDR. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the plaintiff Mrs. Sonia Senroy, praying that the defendant be directed to produce and give inspection of the documents incorporated in Schedule A annexed to the Chamber Summon and furnish copies thereof to the plaintiff. It is also prayed that defendant be directed to answer on oath the interrogatories set-out at Schedule B of the Chamber Summons taken out by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff, who is the wife of defendant, has filed this suit against the defendant husband praying that the defendant be directed to pay to the plaintiff a sumof Rs. 27,000/- per month by way of permanent maintenance for herself as set-out in Exhibit Q annexed to the plaint. It is also prayed that the defendant husband be directed to pay to the plaintiff for the minor child Johann, a sum of Rs, 7,000/- per month by way of permanent maintenance as set-out at Annexure R to the plaint. In Annexure Q, the plaintiff has specified the expenses and...
Mrs. Marina Sequeira and Others Vs. the State of Goa, Through the Gove ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR702; 1998(3)BomCR886; [1999(81)FLR229]; 1999(1)MhLj173
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioners are working as Data Entry Operators in the Computer Centre of the respondent Government. The first five petitioners joined the Computer Centre in the year 1986 and the sixth petitioner joined in the year 1987. Their pay scale at the time of appointment was Rs. 260-400, which was revised to Rs. 950-1500, on account of acceptance of Fourth pay Commission recommendations with effect from 1-1-1986. Vide Order No. 4/3/89-PLG(CC) dated 15-1-1992, the Government of Goa revised the pay scale further to Rs. 1150-1500 with immediate effect.2. The petitioner's case is that after recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, a Committee was set up by the Department of Electronics, Government of India in November, 1986 to examine and suggest re-organisation of existing Electronic Data processing posts and prescribe uniform pay scales and designations in consultation with the Department of Personnel, Government of India. The said Committee made recommendations a...
Sarjerao S/O Ramrao Pole Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR834; 1999CriLJ1433
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith for hearing with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is filed by son of the convict - Ramrao Dattarao Pole who is undergoing imprisonment for life in District Open Prison, Paithan.The said Ramrao is convicted in Sessions Case No. 29/84 for offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. and the conviction was confirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 173/1984. The petitioner has contended that his father was arrested on 9-9-1983 and so by 9-9-1997 he completed 14 years of actual imprisonment. He has further contended that in the year 1985, his father was released on parole for 10 days from 11-1-1985. The period of parole was extended for further 10 days. During the period of parole, his father had applied for extension of the period of parole to the Hon'ble Minister, State of Maharashtra, by his application dated 28-1 -1985 on the ground of illness of his mother. The prisoner received commun...
Smt. Vimladevi Tiwari Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)66; 1999(1)ALLMR116; 1998BomCR(Cri)676; 1998(3)MhLj712
ORDERA.V. Savant, J. 1. This petition by the mother of Jitendra Tiwari, since deceased, alleges illegal detention of the deceased by the third respondent - Special Executive Magistrate - and mother also claims damages from the respondents for the un-natural death of Jitendra Tiwari at the hands of the respondents. While admitting this petition on 27th March, 1998, we have referred to the facts in detail and passed a reasoned order for issuance of rule. In the circumstances, we think it unnecessary to repeat the said facts. The order dated 27th March, 1998 may therefore, be treated as part of this order.2. Pursuant to the direction given by us while issuing rule on 27th March, 1998, further affidavits have been filed before us. The concerned Executive Magistrate namely respondent No. 3 Shri. A.S. Deshbhartar, Assistant Commissioner of Police has filed his affidavit dated 16th April, 1998. He has also produced affidavit of Police Head Constable Shri. R.B. More sworn on 10th April, 1998. ...
Ramzan Mbwana Mazuwa and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)768; 1998CriLJ3547
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellants have challenge the judgment and order dated 6-6-1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 319 of 1990, convicting and sentencing them in the manner stated hereinafter :---i) Under section 120(b) r/w section 364, 367, 394 of I.P.C. and section 3(2)(e)(iii)r/w section 14 of the Foreigners 'Act to undergo life imprisonment; ii) Under section 364 r/w section 34 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and topay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each, in default to undergo 6 months R.I.; iii) Under section 394 r/w 34 I.P.C. in respect of robbery relating to Chanakya Shivram Jaiswal to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to undergo 6 months R.I.; iv) Under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and to pay afine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to undergo 6 months R.I. v) Under section 394 r/w 34 I.P.C. in respect of robbery relating to Deju PujariP.W. 1 t...
Orkay Industries Limited and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR442; (1998)100BOMLR158
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. In all these petitions substantial questions of law have been raised with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Section 138 to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in view of the provisions of Section 536(2), 441(2), 442 and 531 of the Companies Act. It is the submission of the petitioners that in view of the bar contained in Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, as soon as a winding up petition is filed in the Court, no complaint can be entertained by the criminal Courts for offences under Section 138 to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Mr. Manohar relies on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Tulsidas Jasraj Parekh v. Industrial Bank of Western India AIR 1931 Bom. 2 : 32 Bom. L.R. 953 : 127 IndCas 82. wherein it is categorically held as under :Section 227(2) intends to prevent any improper alienation and disposition of the property of a Company in extremis, during the period which must elapse before a winding...
Chempro Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT118Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeals taken up for disposal with the approval of both sides after waiving pre-deposits. In the order impugned in the appeal the Commissioner of Customs, has held that products sought to be exported by each of the appellants, described as "Benzidine 2.2. Disulphonic Acid" which is a derivative of Benzidine and prohibited for export by Notification No. 108(E), dated 30-1-1990 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Notices were issued proposing penalty on the appellants for export of dye intermediate which it was contended contained Bezidine 2.2. Disulphonic Acid (also known as diamino benanilide) as it was prohibited by the notification and taking drawback of duty on the goods.2. The appellant contended that the goods were not a derivative of Benzidine and therefore export was not prohibited by the notification.Commissioner did not accept this contention as the Deputy Chief Chemist held that the product will be derivative of Benzidine. He went into the chemical structur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »