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.
Kenya Airways, a Company Registered Under Law Regulating Companies in ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Bom287; 1998(3)ALLMR282; 1998(3)BomCR562; [1999]96CompCas140(Bom); 1998(2)MhLj668
ORDERAshok Agarwal, J. 1. The questions which arise for our consideration, in the present Appeal, are: (i) Whether the appellant - original defendant No. 3 Kenya Airways can be heldto be a Foreign State within the meaning of section 86 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908? (ii) If yes, whether the first respondent original plaintiff was required to obtaina consent of the Central Government before filing the present suit asrequired by the aforesaid section? (iii) Whether the third defendant has waived its right under section 86 of the Code? (iv) Whether the communication dated 2nd June, 1995 addressed by theMinistry of External Affairs, Government of India, to the plaintiff entitled theplaintiff to file the present suit on the hypothesis that no consent undersection 86 is required to be obtained prior to filing of the present suit? 2. Appellant, Kenya Airways, is defendant No. 3 in the suit. Respondent is original plaintiff No. 1, who along with original plaintiff No. 2, since decease...
The Administrator, City and Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Tuk ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR293
ORDERA.A. Halbe, J.1. This appeal is one of the appeals arising out of the order passed by the District Forum, Aurangabad in number of complaints wherein the grievance of the complainants was identical. The District Forum has passed common judgment in regard to 16 complaints and the present appeal by the CIDCO is against the order of the District Forum in Complaint No. 382/92.2. In this judgment, we have elaborately discussed the case of the appellant Administrator, CIDCO, Aurangabad in regard to the complaints about the delay in possession of the tenements under various schemes and also the so-called deficiency in the construction. The other complaints against which the present appeals have beenfiled by me CIDCO are practically identical and do not call for any separate discussion. In all the complaints, the CIDCO has taken the common defence that the CIDCO has never given any undertaking to the applicants to deliver possession of tenements in a fixed period. No date is given by which...
Daphne E. Marie therese Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR11; 2000BomCR(Cri)11
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The applicant stands charged for possession of 5 grams of charas punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The charge has already been framed against the accused and two prosecution witnesses have been examined. Two bail applications filed by the applicant before the learned Special Judge have been dismissed. In order dated 6th of April, 1988 passed by the Special Judge under the N.D.P.S. Act, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that it is a case of chance recovery due to which, prima facie, provisions of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. This conclusion is seriously challenged by learned Sr. Advocate Shri Lalit Chari while arguing this application for bail before me.2. The contention of learned Sr. Advocate for the applicant is that the panchanama of recovery itself shows that it is not a case of random search and seizure and even the Investigating Officer had not considered this t...
Peico Electronics and Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)(77)LC260Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri K.Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant imported a consignment of electronic components from Holland as per invoice No. 5801212 dt. 16.11.1987, filed Bill of Entry dated 25.11.1987 and paid duty and cleared the goods. Subsequently, appellant filed a refund claim alleging that the supplier had overcharged the appellant and when this was pointed out, supplier had returned the amount of price overcharged and, therefore, the transaction value was less than what was shown in the original invoice.Refund was claimed on the basis that the correct price was the amount shown in the original invoices less the amount returned. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim and his order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal.3. The main reason for rejecting the refund claim is the alleged discrepancy between the co...
Dnyanoba Deorao Ugle and Others Vs. Shaikh HussaIn S/O. Shaikh Farid D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR803
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Suresh Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondents.2. The facts of the case in brief are as under.3. The subject matter of the petition is Survey No. 45 admeasuring 8.36 acres now Gut No. 72 and Survey No. 29 admeasuring 12.36 acres now GutNo. 59 situated at village Rajegaon, Tq. Ambad, District Jalna. This land was owned by one Sakharam Bhimrao Deshpande. The respondent was the tenant of the said land. He sold the lands to Shivaji Raosaheb Deshmukh and Mandakini w/o Dattaji Deshmukh by sale deed dated 7-5-1966, copies of which are filed at Exhibit 'C'. Both these lands were thereafter purchased by the present petitioners on 26-2-68 vide sate deeds at Exhibit 'D' for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in all. It appears from the record that the original tenant was one Sk. Hussain s/o. Sk. Farid and after his death during the proceedings his L.Rs. have been brought on record.4. The original tenant filed application on ...
Mathloob Abdul Gafoor Qureshi and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)735
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Application Nos. 861/98 with 945/98, 862/98, 863/98, 864/98 with 948/98, 865/98 with 949/98, 872/98, 873/98, 946/ 98, 944/98 with 947/98. The facts in all the applications are common. For the purpose of this order, the facts have been taken from Criminal Application No. 861/98.2. One Abdul Gafoor Qureshi, the father of the applicant died some time in 1962. He died leaving behind his wife, i.e. the mother of the applicant and three sons i.e. the applicant, his brother Bakshish and one Mohammed Ayub Qureshi. The said Mohammed Ayub Qureshi was the eldest brother. After the death of the father all the three brothers were instrumental in developing the family business of beef stalls at various places in the city of Bombay. The said stalls were opened at the Municipal market and also in private properties. All the three brothers also acquired a number of properties including bunglow known as Gafoor Mahal Bunglow. The mother is a pardan...
State of Maharashtra Vs. J.P. Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR165
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. The Respondent in this case was discharged by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 5th December, 1998. Against this order the State filed Criminal Revision Application No. 120 of 1996. This was dismissed for default by this Court on 29th September, 1996. Thereafter Application No. 355 of 1997 was filed for restoration of the Criminal Revision. In this application, however, it was mentioned that there was 51 days delay in taking out. the said application. Therefore, prayer was made for condonation of delay. This application has been taken out on the ground that in the earlier application it was mentioned that there was only 51 days delay when in fact there was 96 days delay. In paragraph 3 it is mentioned as follows :-The Applicant states that at the relevant time, due to heavy burden of work, the Application for restoration could not be filed within the statutory period. The Applicant states that the delay caused of 96 days in filing the Applica...
Thakurdas Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ867
J.A. Patil, J. 1. This appeal by the original accused is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-3-1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No. 542/91. The learned Judge convicted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- i/d to suffer further R.I. for two months. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the accused has come in appeal.2. The deceased Devibai was the wife of the accused. Both of them were living together along with (heir son Prakash PW-1 and two daughters, namely, Sonu and Vinu (PW-2) in Quetta Colony, Nagpur. According to the prosecution, the accused was unemployed and he was doing no work. He was addicted to the vice of drinking and he often used to harass and beat his wife Devibai. On some occasions he had even driven her out of the house. It appears that Devibai was working in a private hospital. Prakash was also wo...
Smruti Organics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT74Tri(Mum.)bai
2. In the order impugned in the appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the denial of credit on the ground that the invoices of which credit was taken did not contain details of mode of transport.3. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that in a situation of this kind, where there is no dispute that duty had been paid when the inputs have been received, denial of credit on the ground of lack of minor details which can easily subsequently be supplied and has not a bearing on the payment of duty or receipt of inputs, is not justified....
Fazal Abdul Hamid Lalani Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR487; 1999(5)BomCR240; 1999BomCR(Cri)240; (1998)2BOMLR885
ORDERSmt. Ranjana Desai, J.1. The present petition is filed praying for quashing of the process issued in Case No. 2987 /P/84 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali, Bombay. 2. The petitioner was at the relevant time, working as a Manager of Vaibhav Video Parlour run in the premises of Vaibhav Snack Bar at Dahisar (East), Bombay. According to the petitioner, the said Bar is owned by his brother Ahmed Lalani. The said Bar possessed all requisite licences for an eating house. At the relevant time licences were valid and subsisting. In the part of the premises of the said Snack Bar, a video parlour was being run. In order to ascertain as to whether the video parlour required a licence under the Bombay Police Act or the Cinemas (Regulation) Act, the petitioner's brother addressed a letter dated 10th February, 1984 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Theatre Branch, Bombay. A copy of the said letter is annexed to the petition as Annexure 'A'. In the said lette...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »