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.
Mohanlal Hirachand JaIn Vs. Commr. of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT38Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant was intercepted on the basis of a specific information. The search of the car resulted in recovery of one foreign marked gold biscuit, currency amounting to Rs. 4,39,600/-. The currency, the gold and the car were seized. After issue of show cause notice and after hearing the present appellant, the Dy. Collector ordered absolute confiscation of the gold under Section lll(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and of the currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. He ordered confiscation of the Maruti car valued at Rs. 70,000/- under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants.2. The Commissioner (Appeals), upheld the orders of the confiscation of the gold and the currency but permitted redemption of the motor car on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence the present appeal.3. Shri Madhu Patel, ld. Counsel submits that Shri Jain had given the name of his client, Mr. Sandhu, who had given the gold for conversion in...
Shankar Mangelal Lokhande Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR554; 2000BomCR(Cri)554; (2000)2BOMLR302; I(2001)DMC30; 2000(3)MhLj524
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. The appellant convicted for offences under sections 306 and 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to RI for two years on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for each offence and in default to suffer RI for six months on both the counts has preferred this appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay on 31st July 1992 in Sessions Case No. 878 of 1986.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows:Deceased Pramila was married to the appellant about 12 years prior to the incident which took place on the day of 21st September 1986 in the matrimonial home. During their wedlock deceased gave birth to three children, two sons and one daughter out of whom the younger son is no more. There used to be frequent quarrels between the two on account of the appellant being addicted to alcohol and was frequently assaulting the deceased with fists and kicks. It was also the allegation th...
Prerna Textile Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT241Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This batch of 17 appeals arises out of the common order of the Commissioner of Customs, Sahar International Airport.2. The issues involved are the same. Similar arguments were made by the Counsels appearing for the parties. These 17 appeals are therefore being disposed off vide this common order.3. The appellants are public corporations engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods. In all cases the appellants entered into technical collaborations with leading manufacturers in their own fields abroad.The agreements provided for exchange of technology in the form of supply of know-how, supply of drawings and designs on media, training of personnel staff and similar other activities. As a part of fulfilment of this contract, the contracting parties abroad, from time to time sent drawings, designs etc. In the case of M/s. Videocon, these drawings etc. were imported by hand of one Mr. Kato. In all other cases the drawings etc. were imported through professional couriers, or by post par...
Mohd. Yousuf Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. the Zilla Parishad Parbhani Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR639; 2000(2)BomCR17; 2000(1)MhLj504
1. The petitioner came to be appointed alongwith other 18 individuals vide order dated 4th December, 1981 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani (respondent No. 2 herein) as Junior Engineer in the District Technical Services (Class III) (Engineering) Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs. 395-15-20-700-25-900 with a higher start of Rs. 425/- plus dearness allowance as admissible under the Rules, on a purely temporary basis for a period not exceeding one year or till the candidate selected by the Regional Selection Board, Aurangabad was appointed, whichever was earlier. By an order dated 22nd/29th November, 1982 the petitioner's temporary service alongwith other six Junior Engineers, was brought to an end with effect from 2nd December, 1982 and on or about the same day a fresh appointment order was issued by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner and other six, appointing them on temporary basis for a period not exceeding one year or till the candidate selec...
Jagdish R. Vora and Another Vs. Asit C. Mehta and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR403; 2000(2)BomCR84; (2000)1BOMLR6; 2000(3)MhLj451
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. Arbitration Petition No. 236 of 1996 has been filedby the respondent in Arbitration Petition No. 5 of 1997 for setting aside the award dated 31st July 1995 whereas Arbitration Petition No. 5 of 1997 has been filed by the claimant before the Arbitrators under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for extension of time in making and filing an award. Therefore, both these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. The facts that are relevant and material for deciding these petitions are that the claimant is a share broker and a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange. The respondent is carrying on business of financer and trader in Bombay. A reference was made to the Arbitrator under the Bye-laws and Regulations of the Bombay Stock Exchange on the basis of a claim made by the claimant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 13,92,734.15 from the respondent. The reference was made to the Arbitrators on 22nd January 1993. The last hearing before the Arbit...
Hawaldar Singh Vs. M/S. Taigrania Metal and Steel Industries and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR296; 2000(2)BomCR171; (2000)1BOMLR547; [2000(85)FLR408]; 2000(2)MhLj220
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner workman had joined the employment of the respondent company in January 1982 as a labour. He was issued a show cause notice on 7th February, 1984, It was alleged in the said show cause notice that he had abused time office in-charge in filthy and abusive language which was recorded verbatim in the said show cause notice. It is also alleged that he had threatened Shri Nyati, the time office in-charge that he would beat him with his shoes. The said show cause notice contained all the details. A written explanation was submitted by the petitioner by his letter dated 8th February, 1984, whereby he had denied the charges. The respondent employer instituted an enquiry in the said charges. The petitioner had participated in the enquiry. He was represented by a representative in the enquiry. After the enquiry was concluded the petitioner was dismissed from employment by an order dated 2nd May, 1985. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Labour Court a...
Shri M.D. Kawade and Another Vs. Mahindra Engineering and Chemical Pro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR10; 2000(2)BomCR166; [2000(85)FLR217]
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner No. 1-workman and his union are the petitioners in the present petition to impugn the award Part II passed by the Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court, Pune rejecting the reference.2. The petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was in employment of respondent No. 1 company as a Turner from 1980 in its factory. He was served with a charge sheet dated 19-2-1986 by the Company that during the Calender year 1985 from January to December, he remained absent without leave for total period of 23 days and that the said act on his part amounted to a misconduct under the Model Standing Order 24-F viz. habitual absence without leave. The charge sheet has set out the details of the dates and month of absence. In the charge-sheet it was also mentioned that in the past also he was punished for similar misconduct and in spite of the punishment in the past there was no improvement in his attendance whereby inconvenience and loss was caused to th...
Mr. Franco D'Souza Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR890; 2000CriLJ1985; 2000(4)MhLj9
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for murder of his sister, Clementina Fernandes under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also for causing disappearance of evidence of the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of the charge. After assessment of the evidence, learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal, found the appellant guilty under section 304 (Part II) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo another six months simple imprisonment under section 304 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code and was further sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo another two months simple imprisonment under section 201 o...
Vasudeo Wadiraj Rao Vs. Hotel Padma and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR138
P.S. Patankar, J.1. Rule.2. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 waives notice. The Respondent No. 1 is the firm constituted originally by Petitioner and Respondent No. 2.3. Heard forthwith.4. The Petitioner, who is defendant in the suit, filed an application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1996) for referring the dispute to Arbitration. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Nasik by order dated 28.9.1999. This is challenged here.5. The suit came to be filed by Respondent No. 2 for dissolution of partnership firm by name Hotel Padma and for taking accounts. There is no dispute that Clause 15 of deed of partnership dated 7.4.1992 provided for referring the dispute for arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1940) to two Arbitrators one chosen by each.6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that t...
Hariharrao Pandurangrao Patwardhan Vs. Manojkumar Mahavir Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR387
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The case of the Petitioner is that in a Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 1986 the parties had filed a Compromise Pursis and a Compromise Decree was passed on the basis of the said Compromise Pursis on 10.6.1992. By Resolution dated 28.7.1992 the Municipal Council had ratified the Compromise Pursis by its Resolution No. 478. According to the Petitioner, the subsequent Resolution passed by the Municipal Council on 30.5.1997 declaring the reservation in respect of the land which was subject-matter of the Compromise Decree amounts to flouting of the Compromise Decree, and therefore, it amounts to contempt of Court committed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 12. The Petitioner has filed the present Contempt Petition for relief to punish the Respondent Nos. 1 to 12 for deliberate and wilful disobedience of the Compromise Decree. The Petitioner also appears to have challenged the said resolution before the District Collector. The District Collector appears to have stayed the said reso...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »