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.
Hirayama Shingo Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR535
ORDERR.K. Batta, J. 1. The appellant was tried by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa for possession of 10 grams of charas on his person and 8.620 Kilograms of charas, as well as 380 L.S.D. square pieces from House No. 1649 in his possession under section 20(b)(ii) and section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution had examined 5 witnesses in support of the charges and vide judgment dated; 14-10-97, the appellant was found guilty for possession of 8.620 Kilograms of charas and 380 L.S.D. pieces and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default R. 1. for 2 years on each count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of detention already undergone during the investigation and trial was set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. In respect of possession of 10 grams of charas found on his person, he was acquitted. The appellant challenges his conviction in this appeal.2. The prosecution case, in ...
Smt. Leelavati Narayan Bangera @ Kotian Vs. State of Maharashtra and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR122
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. In this Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has alleged that her son Purshottam Narayan Bangera @ Kotian, was not done to death in an encounter as alleged by the respondent No. 4 Police Inspector Pandharinath N. Ghuge in the F.I.R. of Crime No. 248 of 1998 of police station Bhayandar and in the return filed by the respondent No. 3 Ashok Kamte, Superintendent of Police Thane (West) but, was murdered in a cold-blooded manner after being brutally assaulted by the said respondents and others. She has urged that there has been a violation of the fundamental right provided by Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law and amongst the manifold prayers made by her, one is that a direction be issued by us appointing a retired Judge of this Court or Sessions Court or any other fit person to inquire into ...
Jagannath s/o Janardhan Joshi and another Vs. North Maharashtra Univer ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR123
A.D. Mane, J.1. The Writ Petition No. 928 of 1994 is filed by the Principal of the College run by the respondent No. 4- Jamner Taluka Education Society, Jamner (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Society' for short), whereas the Writ Petition No. 1031 of 1994 is filed by the Society respondent No. 4.2. A common question is involved in these petitions, namely, whether the Executive Council of respondent No. 1 North Maharashtra University (for short 'the University') has an authority to withdraw or cancel the approval by Vice-Chancellor to the appointment of Principal of the College run by respondent No. 4 society. These petitions are therefore disposed of by this common judgment.3. In order to appreciate the grievance voiced by the petitioner it is necessary to have a look at the relevant introductory facts leading to these petitions. The facts can be obtained from Writ Petition No. 928 of 1994.4. The petitioner joined respondent No. 4 Society-College by virtue of appointment order vide...
The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Vs. M/S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR470; 1998(4)BomCR168; 1998(3)MhLj223
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocate for the respondent. None present for the petitioners.The brief facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioners herein filed a civil suit against the respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs. 86,41,535.98 on the ground of damages for non-performance of the contract work. The work was to be performed within Raigad District. The contract papers were signed at Kalamboli. There is no dispute about these facts.2. Moreover, there is a condition incorporated in Clause 5 of the agreementbetween the parties which reads as follows :'All disputes arising out of or in any way connected with this agreement shall be deemed to have arisen in Bombay and only the courts in Bombay shall have jurisdiction to determine the same.'3. The respondents herein relying on the said Clause 5 raised preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Raigad Court to entertain and deal with the matter. The trial Court by its order dated 9th Oct...
Sakharbai Vitha Deore and Others Vs. Rambhabai Gangadhar Dabhade and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR1; 1998(4)BomCR178; 1998(3)MhLj226
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 25th March, 1991 whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application for review of the order rejecting the application for condonation of delay in incorporating the amendment in the pleadings of the plaint which was already allowed by the trial Court on payment of cost of Rs. 100/-.2. The facts in brief which are relevant for the decision are that the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed suit against the respondents herein being R.C.S. No. 94 of 1985 for declaration that the adoption deed dated 26th July, 1982 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs and for their share in the suit property which they were entitled to have. Subsequently, by an application dated 8th June, 1988, the petitioners sought to amend the plaint by incorporating certain subsequent facts and consequential relief arising therefrom in favour of the petitioners. The said application though objected to, after hearing the parties was allowed b...
Harishchandra @ Sunil Rajaram Rasker Vs. Kantilal Virchand Vora and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR258; 1999(5)BomCR123; 1999BomCR(Cri)123; 1998CriLJ3754; 1998(3)MhLj576
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Heard Mr. S.V. Marwadi holding for Mr. Mundergi for the petitioner and Mr. P.R. Singal A.P.P. for respondent No. 2 respondent No. 1 though served has not engaged any Counsel.2. The legal contention raised by Mr. Marwadi in this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is that once in a complaint case, the Magistrate dismisses the complaint for default, he cannot restore the same and the only remedy open to the complainant is to file a second complaint.To substantiate his submission Mr. Marwadi placed reliance on the observations contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Maj. General A.S. Gaurya and another v. S.N. Thakur and another, reported in : 1986CriLJ1074 . I have perused the said decision and find that the proposition canvassed by Mr. Marwadi has been laid down in it.3. In the instant case the complainant (respondent No. 1), filed a complaint ag...
Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT869Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant filed a bill of entry for clearance of five vacuum pumps, mentioned in the invoice and airway bill relating to the consignment.Examination of the consignment showed the presence of 12 such pumps.After issue of notice and considering the reply, the Collector of Customs, in the order impugned in the appeal has ordered confiscation of the seven pumps found in excess under Clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act and an option to redeem as payment of fine of Rs. 10 lakhs and imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 112. Hence this appeal.2. The appellant's representative who is present requests a decision on merits.3. It is the contention of the appellant that it had placed two orders, dated 20th January, 1993 one for supply of seven pumps and the other for five and specifically asked for seven pumps to be shipped by sea and five pumps by air. The supply of all pumps was made by air due to the mistake by the foreign supplier which acknowledged this in its letter dated 20-5-19...
Metropolitan Leather Goods (P) Vs. A.C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT221Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order captioned above passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai, and relates to classification of leather waist belts manufactured by the appellants.2. The ld. Chartered Accountant Shri N.K. Arora for the appellant submitted that they manufacture leather waist belts, rexine cloth belts, textile belts and elastic belts. The appellants claimed classification of all these belts under Chapter 62 against Heading 62.02 CETA as clothing accessories. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise accepted their claim except for leather waist belts which the Assistant Commissioner classified under sub-heading 4201.90 which covers other articles of leather. The Assistant Commissioner's order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. C.A. Shri N.K.Arora contented that leather belts also would fall for classification under Chapter 62 because it is a clothing accessory. Reliance was placed for the purpose on the dictionary meaning of the word ...
inacio Manuel Miranda, Through the Superintendent Vs. the State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR530; 1999CriLJ422
ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. The appellant/accused was tried by the Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao on the charge that on 16-12-1993 between 7.45 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. the accused committed murder of deceased Lalit Vadivelu by giving him blows of a knife and further threatened to kill his wife viz., the complainant Smt. Kuku Vadivelu and her two children with the same knife. Having found the prosecution evidence acceptable, the learned Sessions Judge, by his Order dated 31 -5-1996 convicted the accused of the offences punishable under section 302 and 506 (Para II) and sentenced him under the first count, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to paya fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year and on the second count to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Feeling aggrieved thereby the accused has preferred this appeal.2. The facts which are relevant f...
Madura Coats Employees Union Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1998
Reported in: [1998(80)FLR864]; (1999)ILLJ928Bom
A.P. Shah, J. 1. A very short question arises in this petition as to the correct meaning of Section 17(3)(b) of the Employees, Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act 19 of 1952).2. The petitioner is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Respondent No. 2 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having their office all over India. Petitioner claims to be the representative union of the employees of respondent No. 2 employed in their establishment in Bombay. The Provident Fund Act became applicable sometime in the year 1952. The Act was obviously applicable to the establishment of respondent No. 2 in Mumbai. In about 1986 petitioner and respondent No. 2 had jointly applied for exemption of the provisions of the Act on the ground that the benefits being accorded by respondent No. 2 to their employees were more than that what was available to the employees under the said Act. It was pointed out that respondent No. 2 was effecting deduc...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »