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.
Shri Ghanshyam Raj Narayan Dubey Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR652
ORDERA.V. Savant, J. 1. Heard all the learned Counsel-Shri Gupte for petitioner; Smt. Tahilramani, Asstt. Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri H.V. Mehta for respondent No. 7.2. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the order of detention dated 29th May, 1985, passed against the petitioner-detenu Ghanshyam Raj Narayan Dubey by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay in exercise of his powers under sub-section (1) of section 2 the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug-offenders Act, 1981 (for short 'M.P.D.A.' Act). The Commissioner of Police was satisfied with regard to the said detenu that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to make an order directing that the detenu be detained under the M.P.D.A. Act. The order of detention has not yet been executed for reasons which we will indicate below and, hence this is a petition at the pre-det...
D.E. Phade Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR786
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner is a practising Advocate. He was served an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur District Solapur dated 31.1.1991 which reads as follows :Read Section 205 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 340 and 195(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused have today appeared in the Court. All the three named (1) Bogus Surety (2) Petition Writer and (3) Mr. D.A. Phade Advocate be released on executing their P.R. Bond for Rs. 1000/- today. They shall furnish security on the next day i.e. on 7.9.91 in the like amount as per Section 340(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The said order came to be passed on the basis of a complaint that one Bapu Dattatraya Parade has furnished bogus surety for obtaining bail as per the order passed in Misc. Cri. Application No. 292 of 1990. It is disclosed that Bapu Dattatraya Parade has stood as surety. It is understood from the materials available in this writ petition that Bapu Dattatraya...
National Switchgear and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR606
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. None represented for the petitioners.2. This writ petition arises out of complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay being Case No. 116/5/ of 1991 and the process has been issued against the petitioner.3. I have closely examined the complaint filed by 2nd respondent in this case. It is alleged that the petitioners are Firm and the 1st respondent was his authorised stockist of M/s. Larsen and Toubro Co. Ltd. for dealing with its products. It is alleged that the petitioner placed orders with the complainant for the supply of 3 Nos. of HRC Fuse 630A. It is further alleged that the second respondent sold to the petitioners and supplied the same under their Invoice No. 52404 dated 1st December, 1989 for Rs. 1,076.40 Ps. and the goods were sent to the petitioners at Ambattur through Transport Company i.e. M/s. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. When the goods reached to the petitioners, they failed to take delivery of the goods discha...
Shri Rajendra Sagarmal Malara, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC619
1. The Appellants Khubchand Sagarmal Tyres manufacture tubes for motor vehicles. Shri Madan Malara is the Managing Director and Shri Rajendra Malara is a Director. The officers of HQrs. Preventive Branch, Aurangabad visited the godown of Laxmi Metal Pressing Works on 04.02.1988 and recovered 55 packages of rubber tubes which, the watchman informed, had been brought from Appellants on 24.12.1987 in their tempo van. The driver of the van belonging to the Appellants confirmed this and that the clearance documents were with their excise clerk Shri Momayya. The tubes were seized for action under Central Excise Rules. Statements were given by excise clerks S/Shri Kala and Momayya saying that 191 bags of tubes had been cleared for Sagar Sales Corporation, Nagpur under 3 Gate Passes dated 25.12.1987, and under instructions from Madan Malara these had been taken to Laxmi Metal Godown: that on 28.12.1987 the goods had been moved to the lorry transport office, but brought back to Laxmi Metals go...
Ms. T.K. Doshi Vs. Shri Dipchand J. Taswala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR24; 1999(2)MhLj512
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner by this petition has prayed that the Award dated 3rd April, 1998 passed by the Governing Body of the Bombay Stock Exchange referring the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent to member/member arbitration be quashed and set aside.2. The petitioner in support of her contention has raised various grounds which are enumerated as under:-(1) That the dispute is between member and non-member and not between member and member.(2) The claim is barred by limitation being contrary to the provisions of Bye-law No. 307.(3) There is no contract note providing for arbitration and as such theaward is without jurisdiction.It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the challenge to the award is under section 33 read with section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It is further contended that even though the prayer in the petition is challenge to the award dated 3rd April, 1998 yet the petitioner can under section 33 raise other points involved and w...
Nari Rijhumal Khiani and Another Vs. Metharam Rijhumal Khiani and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR574; 1999(4)BomCR395
ORDERD.K. Trivedi, J.1. The plaintiffs have taken out this notice of motion supported with an affidavit of plaintiff No. 1 dated 3rd October 1997 and prayed for certain reliefs during the pendency of the suit which 1 will highlight lateron.2. As per the plaint, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that the award dated 31-12-1993 and the decree passed in terms of the said award, arc no longer valid and subsisting and the same are not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and defendants are closely related to each other and plaintiff No. 1 is the husband of plaintiff No. 2. In short, the plaintiffs have challenged the award of the Arbitrator dated 31-12-1993 and the decree passed, in terms of the said award. In view of the dispute, the said dispute was referred to before the Arbitrator and four different awards were declared in respect of firm of M/s Valiram Sons, M/s. Valsons Dyeing Bleaching and Printing Works Ltd., M/s. Valtex Silk Mills and M/s. R.V. Sons. The plain...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.S. Vs. V.L. Industries
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR432
D.K. Trivedi, J.1. By this Reference Under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of Entry 27 of Schedule C Part II of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was the Honourable Tribunal justified in law in holding that 'Gulkand' is covered by the scope of the said entry2. The controversy in this case relates to the period from 1.4.1984 to 31.3.1985. The material facts relevant for deciding the controversy in this reference are as follows :The assessee is a manufacturer a sellers of 'Gulkand'. In the course of the assessment for the period from 1.4.1984 to 31.3.1985 under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('Act), the assessee contended before the Sales Tax Officer that 'Gulkand' was medicine and hence it was covered by Entry 24(1) of Schedule C Part II to the Act. The Sales Tax Officer re...
Shri Babulal Vildaram Bishnoi Vs. Smt. Reva Nayyar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR608
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the brother-in-law of detenu Harish Chutraram Bishnoi @ Rajubhai @ Harish, has impugned the detention order dated 30.9.1997 passed by the respondent No. 1 - Smt. Reva Nayyar, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PITNDPS Act) and the declaration No. 22/97 dated 21.10.1997, issued under Section 10(1) of the PITNDPS Act by the 3rd respondent Mr. S.S. Daware, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.2. The detention order dated 30.9.1997, along with grounds of detention bearing the same date was contemporaneously served on the detenu on 13.10.1997.3. We have heard Mr. R.G. Merchant for ...
Ashok Kashinath Pathare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR176
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The appellant has been facing trial for the charges of corruption for allegedly demanding and accepting bribe from six persons on different occasions. The Lower Court has framed in all fourteen charges of the same kind against appellant under Section 161 of I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) read.with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was convicted and sentenced to R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 6,000/- in default R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 161 of I.P.C. and also R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 6,000/- in default R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 5(2) r/w. Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for having demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 600/- from one Kantilal Shivaji Faria on 10.07.1987 under the judgment of the Trial Court which is impugned in this appeal. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.2. Precisely the allegations against...
Collr. of Central Excise Vs. the Maharashtra Agro-inds. Dev.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC618
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Indore made in Order-in-Appeal No. 1069/Appl/Ind/93 dated 18.11.1993. In the said order he set aside the order of the Assistant Collector who by the Order-in-Original had held that Modvat credit has been wrongly availed inasmuch as the final product was exempted under Notification 87/91 dated 11.9.1991.2. When the appeal was taken up Shri S.V. Pande. Assistant Manager, appearing on behalf of the respondent, pleads an adjournment since the consultant is out of station. Normally I would have granted adjournment that since the matter is covered by the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. I feel that it is not necessary to keep the appeal pending.3. In this case the respondent was engaged in the manufacture of processed and prepared foods classifiable under Chapters 20 & 22 of the Central Excise Tariff Act which are marketed under brand name NOGA.They were availing the Modv...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »