Mumbai Court July 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.
Nathabhai Maganbhai Patel Vs. Smt. Rukminibai Vithal Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR84; 1998(4)BomCR651; (1998)3BOMLR22
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1 . The above appeals arose from a common judgment and decree passed by the Joint District Judge, Thane, in Civil Appeal No. 181 of 1985 and Civil Appeal No. 132 of 1985 on 29th November 1985. Since common question of law arises in both the appeals between the same parties, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts in brief are that the respondent herein is the landlady and appellant is a tenant in respect of two rooms situated in a house comprising of four rooms belonging to the respondent. The appellant was served with notice dated 7th October 1982 by the respondent terminating his tenancy in respect of both the rooms and was asked to deliver vacant possession thereof alongwith payment of arrears of rent. The appellant having failed to comply with the said notice, the respondent filed two suits, namely Civil Suit No. 10 of 1983 in respect of Room No. 2 and Civil Suit No. 11 of1983 in respect of Room No. ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Vilas Pandurang Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1062
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the State of Maharashtra (appellant) impugns the Judgment and order dated 15-12-1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 26 of 1984 acquitting the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 302, IPC and 404 IPC. Since this appeal was beyond time by 76 days, Criminal Application No. 847'of 1985 was moved by the State of Maharashtra for condonation of delay. On the said application, a Division Bench of this Court issued Rule. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that sufficient cause for explaining the delay in preferring an appeal has been shown and consequently we make the Rule absolute.2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :-The deceased Suman was the first wife of the respondent. Since the relations between her and the respondent were strained and she did not have good relations with her in-laws she started living separately from the respondent, along with her 3 daught...
Asian Chemical Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT581Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The facts in brief of the case are that the appellant is engaged inter alia, in the manufacture of goods like saccharin, food colour preparations, basic food colours, flavours and aromatic chemicals etc.falling under Chapters 29, 32, 33 and 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. These goods are cleared to different consumers directly or through the dealers. Discount at different rates are given depending upon the quantity and the type of the products ordered by the customers. Dispute arose regarding the higher discount granted to two dealers viz., M/s. Gujarat Essence Mart Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as GEM) and M/s. Forkey Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as FE).It is claimed by the appellants that these two customers lift bulk of their products ranging from 50 to 60% of their sales. While the discount given to other dealers range from 8.5% to 13% in the case of saccharin and 12.5% to 20% on products other than saccharin, these two dealers viz., GEM and FE are allow...
Atul D. Sohni and Another Vs. B.M. Choksey and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Bom41; 1998(4)BomCR348; 1998(3)MhLj258
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J. 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by applicant Kailash Prasad Agarwal, for modification or for setting aside the Order dated 10-7-1997 passed by Justice Variava on the Report of the Court Receiver dated 2-7-1997. In that Order Justice Variava observed and held that the present applicant - Kailash Prasad Agrawal refused to accept the service and that was good service of the Report to Mr. Kailash Prasad Agarwal. Kailash Prasad Agarwal remained absent in the Court. It was further found that Mr. Kailash Prasad Agarwal and his sons were acting high handedly and were carrying out unauthorised construction and giving threats to the representative of the Court Receiver, therefore Court Receiver was directed to evict Kailash Prasad Agarwal and his sons from the suit premises with the help of the police, if necessary. It was clarified that if Mr. Kailash Prasad Agarwal was to make any representation, the said representation can be heard only after he hands over posses...
Rajendra Shantilal Baldota and Another Vs. Subhash Keshrmal Munot and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR118
ORDERS.S. Dani, J.1. Heard Shri S.C. Bora, Counsel for petitioners, Shri B.R. Warma, Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri. N.S. Choudhari, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent No. 2 - State. 2. Rule returnable forthwith and the matter is taken up for final hearing by consent. 3. The present respondent No. 1 approached Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar on 9-2-1993 and alleged that at about 3.00 p.m. on that day when he had gone to the house of the present petitioners alongwith Court bailiff and while he was stepping down the stairs-case the 2 petitioners assaulted the complainant. The concerned police took no cognizance and directed the present respondent No. 1 to approach the Court. The present respondent No. 1 thereafter filed complaint on 17-3-1993 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar and it was numbered as Summary Criminal Case No. 1186 of 1993. In the said criminal case it is alleged, in addition to the abuses and assaults by sticks that the accused ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Borasara Machines Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT408Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We are concerned in this appeal, with the valuation of parts of textile machinery imported by the appellant, from manufacturer M/s.Lema Lezzeni Mario SPA (LEMA for short). The Custom House noted that the appellant had entered into an agreement with LEMA for manufacture and sale of textile machinery developed by Lema. Following clauses in the agreement which are of relevance are reproduced : "5.1: BORASARA MACHINES shall manufacture the machines and parts and assemble the machines from the parts and components in strict accordance with the technical information and specifications supplied by LEMA and to the same standard of quality and workmanship as are maintained by LEMA. In no event shall BORASARA MACHINES change the design, specification, materials or other characteristics of the machines, parts or components. 6.1 : BORASARA MACHINES shall display in conspicuous place on all machines assembled in accordance with the terms of this agreement and on all catalogues, price lists, adv...
Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha Vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ838Bom
1. Rule returnable forthwith Respondents waive service through respective Advocates.2. After having perused the record and heard the learned Advocates for all the parties, we are satisfied that the reasons given by the State Government for refusing reference vide order dated January 9, 1998 are neither relevant, nor germane.3. It is not in dispute that in 1995, when the demands were raised by the petitioner Union, the petitioner Union represented the majority of workmen in Mumbai, Thane and Bhiwandi. It is also not in dispute that the Kolhapur establishment of the 1st Respondent is entirely different from the ones at Mumbai, Thane and Bhiwandi. The recognition obtained by the 4th Respondent under Chapter III of M.R.T.U.& P.U.L.P. Act could not enure for the latter three establishments of the 1st Respondent.4. The record shows that though the salary and allowances of workmen represented by the petitioner Union were revised, the said revision was unilateral and accepted by the concerned ...
Sudarshan Electronics T.V. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT256Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant manufactured and removed without payment of duty 754 television sets. The appellant at the relevant time manufactured colour and back and white television sets. It removed all the goods manufactured by it from its factory at Andheri to the godown of M/s.Murphy (India) Ltd. at Parel. M/s. Murphy (India) Ltd. was the marketing agents for the appellant and all the goods were sold by Murphy. As a result of searches conducted by the department of this godown as well as the appellant's factory, the officers found delivery challans and invoices relating to the removal from the factory to the godown some of which did not contain the numbers of the gate passes until the goods had been cleared. On this basis the notice was issued alleging removal of 3197 TV sets without payment of duty. In the course of the subsequent proceedings, the assessees produced documents in support of his contention that goods had been clear...
Modi Xerox Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC397Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We observe from the impugned order that it has been passed by the lower Appellate Authority without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. The impugned order dismissed the appeal of the appellants herein before the said authority as barred by time by 21 days without any plausible explanation from the appellants 2. We have considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We are of the view that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of the natural justice. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and direct the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bombay to pass a de novo order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants to explain as to why the appeal was filed late if any.Appeal is thus allowed by remand....
Pratapchand Lakhamaji JaIn Vs. Smt. Lilabai Krishanath Surve
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR27; 1998(3)MhLj252
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7-11-1997 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Shriwardhan in Misc. Application No. 2 of 1997. By the impugned order, the lower Court has allowed the application for condonation of delay and for restoration of RCS No. 21 of 1982 filed by the respondent/ plaintiff on 4-3-1997 and thereby has set aside the order of dismissal of the said suit which was passed on 14-6-1984.2. The facts in brief, relevant for the decision herein, are that the petitioner is the tenant of the respondent in respect of the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs. 70/-. By notice dated 30-6-1982, the respondent sought to terminate the tenancy on the ground of default in payment of rent and called upon the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent. By reply dated 19-12-1982, the petitioner denied the claim of respondent. The respondent, thereupon, filed RCS No. 21 of 1982 in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »