Mumbai Court November 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.
Ganpat S/O Sakharam Deshmukh Vs. Yeshwant S/O Digambar Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR338; 2000(2)BomCR40; 2000(1)MhLj126
ORDERB.H. MARLAPALLE, J.1. The petitioner was the owner of agricultural land admeasuring 3 acres and 4 gunthas in Survey No. 28 and 3 acres and 7 gunthas in Survey No. 29 of village Khadaki Ghat in tq. and dist. Beed and the respondent was a protected tenant over the land. The respondent was declared as owner of the land under section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (the Act for short) and by an order dt. 18-12-1959, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal had fixed the price of the subject land in both the survey numbers at Rs. 4,823.50 ps. and directed the price be paid in six equal instalments, commencing from 21st April, 1960. The period of payment expired in 1965 and therefore, the tribunal issued four notices of demand against the tenant and despite these notices, the tenant did not deposit the purchase price of the land. The landlord, therefore, filed an application before the tribunal on 20-10-1974 for the reliefs:(1) that the declaration under section 38-E...
The Blind Relief Association and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR460; 2000(2)BomCR262; (2000)1BOMLR706; 2000(3)MhLj372
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the defendant No. 8 in Suit No 2231 of 1999. The said suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs for mainly challenging the order passed by the defendant No. 1 State of Maharashtra that threatened to cancel the lease in favour of the plaintiff as per the orders dated 22-9-1999 and 10-3-1999 passed by the third respondent, Collector of Bombay City annexed to the plaint as Exh. U & V respectively. The suit has been disposed of by this Court by order dated 6th September, 1999 passed by my learned brother H.L. Gokhale, J. The said order amplifies that dispute cropped up therein were among three parties unlike in normal suit. Paragraph 4 of the order makes it amply clear this peculiar aspect of the case, which reads as under :'The defendant No. 4 and its representatives had earlier agreed to vacate the concerned premises but in view of further life give to them by the defendant No. 1 in their orders, the present suit beca...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Sumitomo Heavy Industries ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR195; 2000(2)BomCR501
ORDERD.K. DESHMUKH, J,1. This petition has been filed under the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1940 for setting aside the award dated 22nd June, 1995 made by the learned umpire Sir Michael Kerr. The respondent Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. is a company established under the Laws of Japan. The petitioner is a statutory Corporation established under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959. By a contract dated 7th September, 1983, the respondent agreed to install and commission on a turnkey basis SH Phase II of a platform at the site of the petitioner known as 'Bombay High South' for their site about 100 miles North-West of Bombay. Under this contract certain disputes arose between the parties and the respondent claimed certain sums from the petitioner, for which the petitioner denied the liabilities. Clause 17.2 of the agreement between the parties is the arbitration clause. That Clause reads as under :-'If any dispute, difference or question shall at any time hereafter arise be...
Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd. Vs. Rhona Norenha Ms. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR535; [2000(85)FLR453]; (2000)IIILLJ394Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. This is a classic case which demonstrates how sometimes the employees lose their good jobs by their irrational and whimsical behaviour during the course of their employment.2. The facts of the case are very simple. The Respondent-employee was employed by the Petitioner-employer as a Confidential Secretary with effect from January 1, 1978. The employer had also notified her name as Confidential Secretary under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. By an order dated June 16, 1977 the Respondent-employee was appointed as a Confidential Secretary in the Petitioner's establishment. By an order dated January 2, 1978 her services were confirmed. Soon after the services came to be confirmed she requested the Petitioner-employer to transfer her from Worli establishment to Thane factory as it was convenient to her. It appears that for their internal administrative exigencies of work and reasons her request for transfer to Thane factory was not accepted. How...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Dr. Beck and Co. (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT627Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the department's appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 8-6-1995 of the respondents praying for setting aside the same and to restore the Order-in-Original dated 17-2-1995 of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise. The respondents has filed the cross objection on the said appeal in time requesting to uphold the impugned order, and to dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated therein.1. The facts of the case are that the respondents manufacture varnishes and others chemicals and availed Modvat credit on the inputs utilised therein. The show cause notice was issued on 5-7-1994, by the Assistant Collector Pune, Division-Ill to the respondents that during the period from 7-1-1994 to 30-6-1994, Modvat credit of Rs. 83,587.46 was taken and availed for the payment of Central Excise duty on the product 'CT Polymer' which is not the final product as per the Modvat declaration dated 28-12-1993 filed by the respondents, and a repacking of the which is not the final p...
Mistry Extrusion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT495Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals are filed by M/s. Mistry Extrusion Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Mahesh J. Mistry against the impugned Order No. 42/MP/1993, dated 6-12-1993 praying for setting aside the same and for such other relief as deemed fit.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants have a factory at GIDC Saregaon Industrial Estate, Bhilad near Vapi in Balsar district in the state of Gujarat in a backward area where the transportation and infrastructure facilities are very poor. They are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium collapsible tubes...76.12 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, a small scale industrial unit and availing general exemption under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 and holding L-4 Central Excise Licence. On 30-3-1990, the officers of the Central Excise Preventive unit at Vapi visited the factory and conducted search operations and seized the documents, registers, papers and records on 30th and 31st May, 1990. The statutory records for the period ...
Shriji Cording Centre Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: (2000)(92)LC166Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Collector in the impugned order held that the activities of cutting, stitching and cording of cotton fabrics to give rise to bed-sheets and pillow covers amounts to manufacture as contemplated in the Central Excise Law. He, therefore confirmed the demand of Rs. 7,61,623.40 under Section 11A and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- on the appellants.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of bed sheets and pillow covers. The appellants manufactured bed-sheets and pillow covers in the factory on job work for M/s. Mangalam, M/s. Loknath Tolaram and M/s. Mangal Kripa. Prior to 1.3.1986, bed-sheets manufactured out of running lengths of cotton fabrics were classifiable under T.I. 19 of the erstwhile tariff. The pillow covers were exempted. The department alleged that the bed-sheets manufactured by the appellants were dutiable and since the appellants had cleared the bed-sheets without payment of duty, therefore there was clandestine removal ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Morarji Goculdas Spinning and Weaving C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR37(Bom); 2000(2)MhLj705
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction of differential excise duty to the extent of Rs. 76,52,169 for the assessment year 1981-82 ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :The assessee is a public limited company running a spinning and weaving mill. On the production of yarn, the assessee had been paying Central excise duty on the basis of weight of the upsized yarn. However, in the accounting year ending on June 30, 1980, relevant to the assessment year 1981-82, some dispute arose in regard to the calculation of the excise duty on the basis of the weight of the yarn before it was sized. The Excise Department was of the opinion that excise duty was payable on t...
Prabhudas Apparao Bidilia Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR576; 2000BomCR(Cri)576; (2000)1BOMLR826
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 10-11-1993 passed by IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 355 of 1992 convicting and sentencing him in the manner stated here in under :---(i) Under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo six months R.I.; and (ii) Under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo three months R.I. The substantive sentences of the appellant were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In short, the prosecution case, runs as under : ---Five eye witnesses of the incident, namely, Tumu Subbarao Laxmayya; Kalingi Raghavan Balkrishna; Lalmani Jaiswal; Hiramana Kadam and Rambhajan Kahar, P.W. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively, informant Minal Chanda (PW 1) and the appellant, at the time of incident, were employed in Ordinance Factory at Ambarnath....
Kadambari Shashikant Mestry (Smt.) Vs. National Film Division Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ488Bom
A.P. Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the Award Part I and Part II dated January 18, 1995 and May 3, 1995 passed by the 9th Labour Court, at Mumbai in reference (IDA) No. 1035 of 1989 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The 1st respondent is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is a Government of India Undertaking. The petitioner's husband Shashikant Mestry was working as .Assistant in Imports and Distribution Department of the 1st Respondent at its registered office since 1968. In 1986 said Shashikant (hereinafter referred to as 'workman') was charge-sheeted alleging that he had falsely claimed Leave Travel Concession without undertaking the journey. In reply the workman denied that he had not undertaken the journey. He led evidence to show that he had gone on pilgrimage to different holy places in Maharashlra. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the workman...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »