Mumbai Court September 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.
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC268
1. Bajaj Tempo Limited has filed these five appeals against the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Pune) against the impugned orders 4 to 7 and 9/CEX/1998, dated 22-1-1998, 28-1-1998, 7-2-1998, 5-2-1998 and 4-2-1998, praying for quashing and setting aside the said orders, whereunder he has disallowed the Modvat credit on some of the inputs and to hold that the denial of Modvat credit on Technical/Procedural defects is illegal and unjustified and the appellant is not liable to pay the said duty as confirmed in the above orders.1. The facts of the case are that the appellant manufactures motor vehicles parts thereof and I.C. Engines. It availed Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.Show Cause Notices dated 1-3-1996,29-3-1996,2-4-1997 and 29-8-1996 were issued in disallowing the Modvat credit of the amount mentioned in the respective impugned orders on the grounds that: (ii) The dealers invoices were not in the Pink colour, not aut...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Dharmendra Ambar Mohite
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR89; 2000BomCR(Cri)89; 1999(1)MhLj952
1. Heard Smt. Geeta Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the appellant--State, and Mr. R.M. Deshmukh, Counsel for the respondent. 2. The State wants to file appeal against acquittal recorded by Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No. 4, Dhule, in Summary Trial Criminal Case No. 2440/1992. The State has prayed that the leave be granted to file appeal asper provisions of sub-section (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. So, at this stage, it is being considered, whether leave can be granted to file the criminal appeal.3. The respondent was prosecuted for offence punishable under section 145(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, alleging that the respondent had given false information while securing the service as Constable under State Reserve Police. It is alleged that a crime was registered against the respondent, being Crime No. 118/88, for offence punishable under sections 326, 504, both read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, at City Police Station, Dhule....
The Antifriction Bearings Corporation Limited and Another Vs. State of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Bom37; 1999(1)BomCR13
ORDERAshoka A. Desai, J.1. Whether section 7 of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958, if seeks to levy stamp duty on the copy of Instrument, suffers from lack of Legislative competence Inter alia this is a common question involved in these petitions.Preface to the question is that the petitioner-companies hold most of the immoveable properties in State of Gujrat. In relation thereto, they haveexecuted Debenture Trust Deeds (the Instrument) in favour of the Industrial Credit and investment Corporation. The companies obtained exemption under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in view of Article 27. They have further registered those Instruments with Sub-Registrar in the State of Gujrat as required by the Indian Registration Act. Stamp duty was paid on them under the Act 1958, as applicable to the State of Gujrat, at the rates prevailing therein. These rates are comparatively lower than those prevailing in the State of Maharashtra.2. Petitioner-companies then, filed copy of the instruments under section 125...
Aasma Abdul Majeed and Another Vs. Jayram Arjun Tisge and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR74; 1999(1)MhLj17
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel Shri Khadapkar for the petitioners and Shri Palekar for respondents Nos. 1 to 4. The two petitioners are original plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 8. Respondents are the original defendants and the rest of the plaintiffs. 2. The short point which arises for my consideration is whether the order dated 8th October, 1997 rejecting the petitioners' (plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 8) application for amendment is justified in the facts of the case. 3. The plaintiffs filed Reg. Civil Suit No. 36 of 1983 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Malegaon. The plaint is dated 19th January 1983. The plaintiffs averred that they were the owners of certain property-land having purchased the same from the defendants in the year 1980. The suit property was already divided into plots in the year 1976 and the division was duly approved by the Asstt. Director of Town Planning on 29th June, 1976. It is averred that the plots were finally sanctioned by the concerned auth...
Ravindra Motilal Patil and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR204
ORDERPer A.D. Mane, J.1. The central point involved in these writ petitions is two fold, firstly, whether the petitioners, who hold Diploma in Teaching awarded by the Dr. Harisingh Gaur University and Devi Ahilya University (both from Madhya Pradesh) are entitled for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the State of Maharashtra and secondly, non appointment of the petitioners, on the post of Assistant Teacher, infringes the mandate of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts, on basis of which these petitions are filed are identical and therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. There were about 369 posts to be filled in and therefore, in the year 1995 a mass recruitment was advertised from various Zilla Parishads in the State of Maharashtra for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools run by the Zilla Parishad. An advertisement was issued on 18-5-1996 by the Commissioner of Government Examinatio...
Shri Madhav Ramkrishna Chitnis and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR526
N.J. Pandya, J.1. The Petitioners are the accused in the Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 25 of 1993 filed under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU and PULP Act').2. This was preceded by a Complaint (ULP) No. 470 of 1993 under Section 28 of the said MRTU and PULP Act against Petitioner No. 15 i.e. Original Accused No. 15 of the impugned complaint. It may be noted here that in the said earlier complaint (PULP) No. 470 of 1993, only the said Petitioner No. 15 is joined as solitary accused. However, he has been so joined as Bharati Sahakari Bank Ltd., and not in the manner joined in the subsequent complaint by its General Manager Shri Babanrao Laxmari Pokale. This distinction is to be borne in mind in relation to the rival submissions which are now being considered.3. In view of these two complaints filed one after another, for the sake of convenience, with reference to the earl...
Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Punjsons Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR162; 1999(1)BomCR228; (1999)1BOMLR84; 1999(2)MhLj692
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner by an agreement dated 15th June, 1984 entered into a contract with the respondent for coating, wrapping and weight coating etc. of line pipes for South Bassein Hazira Gas Lines Project. The respondents were one of the tenderers for the original bid. The petitioner however in terms of bids received Awarded the contract to Mazgaon Docks Limited. Subsequently the petitioner Awarded a part of that contract to the respondent. There are some disputes as to the terms and conditions more specifically the Telex dated December 1st, 1983 in view of Clause 10 of the Agreement and hence I am not considering the said document though it is referred to in the contract and in the Award. The relevant aspects, to the extent they are necessary will be dealt with while dealing with challenges to the Award. Suffice it to say that the contract was signed pursuant to which the respondents carried out the works. The contract contained a Clause, namely Clause 28.1 for arbi...
Kapal R. Mehra and Others Vs. Bhupendra M. Bheda and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR544; 1998(4)BomCR872
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent heard forthwith.2. The petition was argued at length earlier. The matter was adjourned for further hearing today as a point pertaining to legality of constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal was in issue in another proceeding. That point has been decided by me, by Judgment delivered on 7th September, 1998 in Arbitration Petition No. 130 of 1998, Vinay Bubna v. Yogesh Mehta & others, : 1998(4)BomCR849 . This Court has held that an award by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted in contravention of section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is liable to be set aside under section 34(2)(a)(v) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 which will be referred to as the Arbitration Act, 1996.3. The present petition has been preferred against the Order dated 18-6-1998. By the said Order the arbitral tribunal had decided the objection raised by the petitioners herein regarding maintainability of the Arbitration. The Arb...
Atul R. Shah Vs. M/S. V. Vrijlal Lalloobhai and Co. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Bom67; 1998(4)ALLMR464; 1998(4)BomCR867; 1999(1)MhLj629
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner by this petition is challenging the impugned Award dated 26-6-1998 under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act, 1996. Before dealing with the various contentions raised to challenge the Award, a few necessary facts which are essential for disposing of the said contentions are herein set out.3. The dispute between the respondents and the petitioner was referred to an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the Bye-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange. The petitioner is a non member and the respondent No. 1 a member of respondent No. 2 the Bombay Stock Exchange. In the course of the Arbitral proceedings one of the Arbitrators expired. Due notice was given to the parties by the Stock Exchange by their letter dated 15-5-1998. The parties were informed that the matter would be heard again after appointing a new set of Arbitrators. Parties were als...
Smt. Zaibunissa Mohd. Farook Mugal Vs. the State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR585
N. Arumugham, J.1. By virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this writ of habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner who is the wife of the detenu, by name, Shri Mohammad Farook Ibrahim Mugal detained by an order dated 10.6.1991 passed by the Secretary (Preventive Detention) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Bombay, 2nd respondent herein, by virtue of sub-clause (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974), impugning the same and praying to quash the said order.The detention order, grounds of detention and a list of documents relied by the respondents as per Annexures A, B and C to the petition, were served on the detenu on or about 16.10.1997.2. On a secret information, the Customs Officers of Marine and Preventive Wing, Bombay Preventive Collectorate, searched the residential premises at room No. 19, 3rd floor, 352 Ibrahim Rahimtulla Road Bombay-3 on 16.8.1990 in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »