Mumbai Court January 1999 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.
Sheela Sohanlal Ghai and Others Vs. Snehlata Sohanlal Ghai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR718; 1999(2)BomCR282
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This notice of motion has been taken out under section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for stay of further proceedings in the present suit. In affidavit in support of the notice of motion, it is stated that the defendant No. 1 was the legally wedded wife of one Sohanlal Bansiram Ghai, who passed away on 3rd March 1989. The defendant No. 1 along with her daughter and son as the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased filed Suit No. 1055/89 in this Court on 3rd April 1989. This suit is filed against the plaintiffs herein and others seeking, inter alia, the declaration that the plaintiffs therein are the only heirs and legal representatives of the deceased and are as such entitled to the estate left by the deceased. It is also claimed in Suit No. 1055/89 that the defendants therein do not have any share, right, title or interest of whatsoever nature in the estate of the deceased. Prayer for appointment of Receiver and injunction was also made in that suit. Su...
Narayan pakirasa Basude (deceased) through LR's Vs. Gulabchand Manikch ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR1; 2000(2)BomCR650
ORDERR. M. Lodha, J.1. This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the two courts below on the ground that the plaintiff-landlord needs the premises in question bona fide and reasonably. The trial Court decreed plaintiff-landlord's suit for eviction on 30th September, 1986. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was carried in appeal by the defendants which was dismissed by IV All. District Judge. Solapur on 31-1-90. The present writ petition at the instance of petitioner No. 18 Suresh Narayan Basude has already been dismissed vide order dated 13-2-98. The respondent Gulabchand Manikchand Shah (hereinafter referred to as landlord) filed a suit for eviction against the tenant Narayan Pakirasa Basude who died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record. In the suit for eviction, the landlord averred that the tenant was occupying the suit premises o...
Dr. Ravindra Kulkarni Vs. Mr. Balasaheb Gangaram Gavade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR58
ORDERA.A. Halbe, President.1. This appeal by the appellant Dr. Ravindra Dattatraya Kulkarni is directed against the order of the Additional District Forum, Pune in Complaint No. 311 of 1995, directing the appellant to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- with 18% interest thereon from 28-12-92 till payment on the ground that the appellant has been grossly negligent in the treatment of wife of the complainant by name Charulata Balasaheb Gawade, when she delivered the female child on 28-12-92 in the hospital of the appellant. The main grievance is that after the delivery by Charulata, the appellant did not attend on her. There was profuse bleeding from uterus soon after the delivery and that in spite of repeated complaints made by Charulata and her attending relations, no attention was paid and lastly when the doctors arrived, the situation had gone out of control and ultimately, in the evening hours of the same day, Charulata died. She was aged 27 years and had two children. She was working as a Teacher ...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Tukaram Ganpat MaraThe and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR102]; (2001)IIILLJ38Bom
N.J. Pandya, J. 1. These two petitions are filed by the employer and employee respectively against the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, given in Reference No. CGIT-1/87/1990 on December 16, 1994. T.C. Marathe (hereinafter referred to as the said 'employee') alongwith another co-worker, was facing departmental proceedings before the Enquiry Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the employer (hereinafter referred to as such).(i) The incidents related to what had happened on November 18, 1982 and November 19, 1982. That the said employee with his co- worker Mandavkar, working as Hamal of the employer, at the relevant time were supposed to carry out packing and unpacking work in the stationery department. On November 18, 1982 they were asked to pack the stationery in the boxes to be sent to the Parbhani Branch office and in that regard, in spite of the instructions, they have failed to pick and pack the stationery in the boxes and could not send it t...
Pendse M.V. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR482; [1999(82)FLR20]; (2000)ILLJ1003Bom
Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of dismissal from service passed by the Respondent No. 2. Against the order of dismissal Exh. L dated March 30, 1994, the petitioner; had filed an appeal before the Respondent No. 5. The appeal was also dismissed, confirming the order of punishment awarded against the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging these orders.2. Before going further, it has to be mentioned here that the petitioner was working as a Chief Internal Auditor and he was due to retire on September 30, 1993. Just before a couple of weeks, before his retirement, a charge-sheet has been communicated to him on September 8, 1993. There are altogether eight charges levelled against the petitioner. For the purpose of this case, I do not think it is necessary to extract all the allegations contained in the charge-sheet. But it is necessary to extract two charges namely charge Nos. 7 and 8.Charge ...
Ritz Private Limited Vs. Lal Bavta Hotel Aur Bakery Mazdoor Union and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1999
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR524]; (1999)IILLJ255Bom
N.J. Pandya, J.1. This petition is filed by the employer/management against the order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai in compliant (ULP) No. 1666 of 1991 on November 29, 1996. The petitioner-employer is running a hotel viz. Ritz Hotel, and Respondent No. 1 Union has filed a complaint on behalf of one Shri. V.T. Kumar as its member, who at the relevant time worked as a 'South Indian Cook' for preparing South Indian dishes in the hotel of the petitioner-employer. The above South Indian Kitchen in the Hotel was started somewhere in the year 1976.2. Initially, Mr. V.T. Kumar was appointed on probation as a 'South Indian Cook' in August 1976 and he was confirmed on the said post w.e.f. January 1, 1977. Further, it is stated by the petitioner-employer that South Indian Kitchen was running in loss and was no more profitable. Accordingly, it was decided by the management of the hotel to close down 'South Indian Kitchen department.'3. Since the petitioner-employer viz. Ritz ...
Century Laminating Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC713Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision dated 21-9-1993 made by the Collector (Appeals), Mumbai in Order-in-Appeal No. 534/93 BCH.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are the appellants had imported consignments of "Base Paper for Coating, Waxing and Impregnating" vide Bill of Entry No. 6885, dated 22-4-1992. It appeared to the adjudicating authority that the imported goods were stock lot.Examination report also confirmed it. No show cause notice was given in this case as it was waived. It was claimed by the Department that in terms of the Policy at Paragraph 86(1) the goods for the import of which the licence is granted, shall be new goods, other than disposal goods unless otherwise stated in the licence. It is further stated in the Policy that the disposal goods even if new will not be treated as new goods. Both the lower authorities have held that the appellants have followed the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/-...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sahyadri Dyestuffs and Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT750Tri(Mum.)bai
31. A Show Cause Notice was issued alleging that the respondents had utilized Modvat set off on the input L. naphthylamine falling under chapter Heading 29.21.2. It was contended by the respondents that the Modvat Rules prescribed the procedure for availing credit except cases where it has been specifically waived. The user of the naphthalene based inputs is entitled to Modvat credit of the duty paid by the manufacturer by virtue of classification under which the input falls. The Collector (Appeals) by the impugned order had totally agreed with the plea taken by the assessee on the ground that once the duty had been paid on inputs and the necessary gate pass evidencing payment of duty is produced. Modvat credit cannot be denied.3. Against this order, the instant appeal has been filed. It is contended by the department that the Collector (Appeals), Pune had failed to adhere to the principles of the statute inasmuch as Notification 177/86 specifies the inputs and final products on which...
Malwi Ship Breaking Co. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. (A)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC513
This is the party's appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 6-1-1993 of the respondents, praying for setting aside the same and for such other relief, as deemed fit.1. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the breaking of old and unserviceable imported ships at Alang ship breaking yard. He purchased the ship "M.V. LINHAI" as per memorandum of agreement dated 10-8-1990 and the addendum No. 1 dated 1-10-1990 from M/s. Echkardt Marine German. The Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT) of the vessel being 4675 Long Ton, duly certified by independent Marine Surveyor or classification society. The revised letter of credit was taken on 25-10-1990 for US $ 1.051,875/- @ 225 US $ for long ton of the LDT excluding permanent ballast for net LDT of 4675/- long tons. On the arrival of the ship M/s. Erickson & Rechards (Gujarat) Surveyor, being convinced of the removal/non-existence of 5 cranes bearing 110 long tons issued after verification, the survey report dat...
Dharam Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC227
1. These two applications have been filed for seeking stay of payment of duty of Rs. 59,02,903/- being the remainder of the amount of duty demanded under adjudication order i.e., Rs. 95,45,903/- out of which Rs. 46,43,000/- was already paid. The impugned order imposes a penalty of Rs.l crore on the Proprietor. Application has been filed for waiver of this amount as well.2. The appellants are holders of Advance Licence, and imported certain goods and in fulfilment of the export obligations they exported certain goods. The export documents, it is alleged, have been forged by the Proprietor of one Amol Shipping Agency by name Ashok Baburao Pokharkar, the Appellant in Appeal No. C/830/98 along with Test Reports, replacement of samples, preparation of forged copies of Bills of Lading without any exports taking place, preparation of forged Shipping Bills without actual export manipulation of invoices, blank SASMIRA test report forms and rubber stamps etc. It is stated that the statement of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »