Mumbai Court December 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.
Vishwanathan Ramachandran Iyer Vs. Trustees of the Port of Bombay and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR481; [2000(84)FLR756]; (2000)IIILLJ423Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked by the petitioner to get the order of his compulsory retirement, by way of punishment imposed by his employer, the Bombay Port Trust (BPT) for contravention of the service regulations, quashed and set aside. He has contended that the alleged breach of the regulations was of mere technical nature not warranting the extreme penalty of throwing him out of employment.2. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated July 23, 1984 alleging breach of:-(1) BPT-PF Regulation No. 19-B(7)(8). (ii) BPT (Conduct) Regulations 15(4). (iii) BPT (Grant of Advance for purchase of Motor Car and Motorcycles) Regulations, 1976, (Regulations 14,15 and 16). The above regulations for ready reference are produced below: -Regulation 19-B(7): 'A subscriber shall also be permitted subject to the other conditions hereinabove mentioned, to withdraw an appropriate amount for the purpose of purchasing on ownership basis a residential fla...
Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. R.P. Sawant and 401 ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR286; (2000)IILLJ17Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. What the employees have complained to be an unfair labour practice under item 6 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 (the Act for short), the petitioner-employers have said to be-employment by rotation of 4000 employees for a period of less than 7 months. I would rather name it to be 'Bajaj Rozgar Yojana' like, Jawahar Rozgar Yojana. They have averred so in their written statement and in their writ petition as under:- '(x) That the learned Industrial Court ex facie erred in concluding that there was an obligation on the petitioner company, to prove workers were engaged for work of seasonal or temporary nature. The learned Judge failed to realise that the appointments in the present case were purely contractual. By reason of this employment albeit on temporary and rotational basis, the petitioner was giving employment from time to time to as many as 4000 workers through the aforesaid rotation. This could not have been possible had the petitioner employed regular workers....
Barber Ship Management (i) Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC463Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This case was initially posted for hearing of the stay application, but on hearing both sides the matter was listed for final disposal. We have heard today Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Deepak Kumar for the Revenue.2. For the purpose of hearing the main appeal, we waive the condition of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 4.00 lakhs levied on the appellants in the impugned order.3. The appellants imported six sets of data processing machine consisting of Computer, Monitors, Key Boards, Printers. They separately also imported one Colour Printer and one Server. These goods were classified under Heading 84.71 by the importers. One of the computer systems contained Software recorded on a Hard-disk assembled as a part inside the system. The classification for this was separately claimed under Heading 85.24 and clearance under exemption Notification No.23/98-Cus. (Sr. No. 206) was claimed. The proposed classification was challenged by the Customs. After issue of show c...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat Synthwood Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT710Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is a restoration application filed by the department against the decision of the Tribunal made on 17-7-1998 dismissing the appeal.The appeal was dismissed by me on that day on the ground that the words "not legal or valid" as per the Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Rules were absent and sought to follow the judgment of the Tribunal reported in 1998 (25) RLT 847 and 1996 (84) E.L.T. 464. The present application has been filed by the department seeking restoration of the appeal on the ground that the words not legal or valid are sought to be included by the applicant now. In my view, the action taken by the department in filing the instant application is wrong in law. Section 35B of the Central Excise Act provides that any person aggrieved by any of the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A should file appeal within 3 months of passing of such order.Sub-section 2 of Section 35B provides that the Commissioner of Central Excise may, if he is of opinion...
Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Vs. C.C.E. and C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT662Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today when the application for stay is posted for hearing it is felt that the appeal itself could be disposed of Hence I have taken up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. Shri A.P. Kolte appeared for the appellants and Shri K.L. Ramteke appeared for the Department. In this case the appellant has taken the Modvat credit for the payment of duty of final product without filing the declaration under Rule 57G at the time of taking credit and the such declaration was filed a week thereafter. When the declaration was filed a plea was made by the applicant for condoning the delay without mentioning the reasons. Therefore the Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit for the period prior to 29-11-1995 on the ground that no reason was given this order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).Hence the present appeal before me.3. Shri A.P. Kolte states that modvat credit rules as contained in Rule 57G(5) read with proviso states that the discretion has been...
The Secretary and Another Vs. Shri Chintamani Birjaprasad Dubey and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR64; 2000(2)BomCR601; (2000)2BOMLR648; 2000(2)MhLj267
ORDERJ. A. Patil, J.1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 4-4-1998 passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai, in Appeal No. BOM/1/1996. The impugned order directed the appellants to promote respondent No. 1 to the post of Laboratory Assistant with effect from 3-1-1996 with all the benefits of that post including salary and allowances.2. There is a High School by name Shri Jamnadas Adukia Balika Vidyalaya at Kandivali (East) Mumbai-400 101. It is run by a Public Trust of which petitioner Ho. 1 is the Secretary and petitioner No. 2 is the Headmistress. Respondent No. 1 was appointed in the said School as a Peon in the year 1972. In the course of his service, he was promoted to the post of Laboratory Attendant. In 1984, respondent No. 1 improved his educational qualification by passing S.S.C. Examination and thereby became eligible for being promoted to the post of Clerk or Laboratory Assistant. Accordin...
Poise Securities and Exchange Ltd. Vs. Mansu Investment Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR84; 2000(2)BomCR876; (2000)1BOMLR613; 2000(3)MhLj84
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 13th November 1998 made by the sole Arbitrator-National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. The only ground on which the award is challenged is that the claim is barred by limitation. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents filed their statement of case. In the said statement of case, they stated that they are customer of the petitioners and they sold securities through the petitioners by contract notes dated 6th September 1996 and 4th October 1996 and for discharging the liability incurred by the petitioners because of that sale, the petitioners issued cheques on 30th June 1997. Those cheques were presented to the bank immediately, however they were dishonoured and therefore the respondents made a claim for Rs. 6,90,000/- with interest. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is clear from the statement of the claim filed by the respondents tha...
Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Sharad Shetkari Soot Girni Niyami ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR46; 2000(2)BomCR878; 2000(3)MhLj96
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 27th January, 1999 passed by the learned Arbitrator - Shri V.T. Chari. It transpires that the plaintiff filed a suit for money decree against the defendant before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur which was Suit No. 303 of 1996. In that suit, the present petitioner was the defendant. He filed an application before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur stating therein that the dispute between parties should be referred to Shri Chari as an Arbitrator. This application was not opposed by the plaintiff respondent and therefore, the Court appointed by order dated 26th September, 1997 Shri Chari as Arbitrator. Pursuant to that appointment, Shri Chari entered reference and made the award.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner first submits that the appointment of Shri Chari as an Arbitrator was contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the award pass...
Poise Securities and Exchange Ltd. Vs. D.V. Lonkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1999
Reported in: 2000(01)ALLMR620; 2000(3)BomCR101; 2000(3)MhLj64
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 13th November 1998 made by the sole Arbitrator-National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. By that award, the Arbitrator has directed the petitioners to return the shares to the respondents or to pay the price of the shares. The only objection that was raised before me is that the statement of claim filed by the respondents was barred by limitation. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that Chapter V of the Capital Market Trading Regulations of the National Stock Exchange provides a period of limitation of three months for referring disputes to arbitration. According to the petitioners, the cause of action to the respondents accrued against the petitioners on 23rd July 1996 whereas the dispute has been referred to arbitration on 20th December 1998. It is clearly beyond the period of three months. The learned Counsel submits that the arbitrator has totally misconstrued and misappreciated the Bye-la...
Satyawadi S/O Ganpatrao Pimple and Another Vs. Sow. Aruna W/O Ganpatra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR305; 2000(3)BomCR182; 2000(2)MhLj322
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The Head Mistress of the school, run by the applicant society, had challenged her reversion effected by an order dated 1-11-1999, in Regular Civil Suit No. 58/ 1999, before the Civil Judge (Senior) Division, Nanded and her application for interim relief was rejected. She had gone in appeal before the District Court unsuccessfully and filed Civil Revision Application No. 930/1999 which came to be disposed of by this Court with liberty to approach the Schools Tribunal under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short M.E.P.S. Act). The applicant society has filed the instant review application, contending therein that the view taken by this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 930/1999 that civil suit was not tenable before the Civil Court is contrary to the view taken earlier by this Court (Dr. Saraf, J.) in the case of Rasta Peth Education Society, Pune v. Pethkar Udhav Bhimashankar, : ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »