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.
Rajnikant Jaywant Londhe Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR560
S.S. Parkar, J.1. The appellant convicted for offences under Sections 161 and 217 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for six months for each of the above offences by the Judgment and Order dated 31st July, 1992 delivered in Special Case No. 3 of 1989 by Special Judge, Sangli has appealed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, runs as follows:The appellant at the relevant time i.e. between April to September, 1987 was working as Police Head Constable attached to Jath Police Station. He was charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 161, 217, 218, 193, 196 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code along with offence under Section 5(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegations against the appellant were that while acting as Head Constable attached to the said police station he had commit...
Berla Atandt Communication Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(Mumbai)648
ORDERR.V. Easwar, J.M.This is an appeal by the assessee which is a company. The appeal relates to the assessment year 1997-98, for the previous year ended on 31st March, 1997.2. There are two disputes raised by the assessee. The first is regarding the correctness of the prima facie adjustment made by the assessing officer under section 143(l)(a) of the Act by disallowing a sum of Rs. 31.38 crores, for the reasons given by him in the adjustment explanatory sheet. The second dispute, which is the more important one is whether the assessing officer was justified in levying additional income-tax of Rs. 2,69,86,800 under section 143(lA), as a consequence to the prima facie adjustment.3. We may first take up the main dispute, namely, the levy of the additional income-tax under section 143(IA), the assessing officer is empowered to charge additional tax from the assessee where as a result of the prima facie adjustment made under the first proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1), the income d...
ici India Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR214; 2000(2)BomCR590
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner company has challenged two orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra at Thane, the first Award dated 23-4-1991 holding the company's domestic enquiry as vitiated and being in violation of principles of natural justice and the final Award passed by the Tribunal dated 22-4-1992 rejecting the company's approval application under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 praying for approval of its action of dismissal of the two workmen, who were held guilty by the company in its domestic enquiry of the misconduct of assault on the co-workers at the factory gate.2. The history of the present petition relates back to the year 1980. I would enumerate only the relevant facts and events and I would avoid irrelevant events. At the outset I am called upon to decide whether the order dated 23-4-1991 passed by the Industrial Tribunal holding the domestic enquiry as vitiated, is legal and valid. If I come to a conclusion that the impugne...
Shri Sonaba Baburao Dalvi Vs. Factory Manager and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR313; 2000(2)BomCR597; [2000(84)FLR941]; (2000)IILLJ13Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the concurrent findings recorded by the Labour Court, Pune and the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Pune. The facts which gave rise to the present dispute are as follows:2. The petitioner was working as a permanent Drawer in the Drawing-in Department of the respondent Mills. He had put in about 20 years service in the Mills. He was served with a show cause notice dated 26-12-1978, the gist of which is that the petitioner had not given the usual production as decided by the company. While others in his shift were giving 8500 ends production, it was alleged that the petitioner was deliberately giving low production by doing work slowly. The said show cause notice also contained his past misconduct and that inspite of legal action against him he had not improved. The show cause notice contained a chart of production given by him from 4-12-1978 to 22-12-1978. The pe...
Procter and Gamble India Ltd. and Another Vs. Endolabs Limited and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR136; (2000)1BOMLR938
ORDERR. M. Lodha, J.1. This action is at the instance of Procter & Gamble (India) Ltd. and Richardson-Vicks Inc. (1st & 2nd plaintiffs respectively) against Endolabs Limited (1st defendants) and Shree Mangesh Medical Stores (2nd defendants) praying for perpetual injunction against the defendants from manufacturing, selling, advertising or offering to sell any products under the Cartons and Strips, samples whereof are annexed at Exhibit 1 to the plaint and/or bearing the mark ACTION or under any other mark cartons or stripsor packaging material resembling the plaintiff's, cartons and strips of ACTION 500, samples whereof are annexed at Exhibits E and F to the plaint or the mark ACTION 500 and from using in relation to any products the cartons and strips, samples of which are at Exhibit I and/or the mark ACTION or any other cartons/strips or packing materials or mark resembling the plaintiffs ACTION 500 cartons and strips and the mark ACTION, in any way so as to pass off or enable others...
Tukaram Pandurang Gaikwad Vs. Smt. Hababi Eabumiya Shaikh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR654
J.A. Patil, J.1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Original Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2) had filed Special Civil Suit No. 296 of 1972 against the Appellant (Original Defendant No. 1) and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Original Defendant Nos. 3 and 4) for declaration and partition. The suit was filed in the year 1972 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, who, by his Judgment dated 10.3.1983 decreed the claim. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Defendant No. 1 has filed this Appeal. The suit was valued at Rs. 43.460/- for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction.2. When the appeal came up before me for hearing, Shri Anturkar, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submitted that in view of the provisions of the Bombay Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1998 (Act No. III of 1999) which came into force on 13.1.1999, this appeal cannot lie on the file of the High Court and it will have to be sent back to the District Court, Pune, for disposal according to law. The submission of Shri Anturkar was stron...
Capt. M.R. HussaIn and Another Vs. Intertek Testing Services India Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR596; 2000(2)BomCR473; (2000)1BOMLR855
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This is a petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. It appears that by an agreement dated 6th August 1998, which is an agreement between the petitioners and respondent No. 1, the amounts released from certain transactions were to be deposited with an Escrow Agent, respondent No. 2. It further appears that the parties on the same day, entered into another agreement, which specifically deals with the disbursal of the amounts that are kept with respondent No. 2 as an Escrow Agent. It appears that the dispute arose between the petitioners and respondent No. 1 about the release of amounts kept with the Escrow Agent. The petitioners, therefore, filed the present dispute principally for an order of injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from seeking release of the funds from respondent No. 2, the Escrow Agent. This Court, by an order dated 24th August 1999, directed respondent No. 2 to release the amounts from theescrow funds in exce...
Jawahar Annaldamla and Others Vs. Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Manageme ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom159; 2000(1)ALLMR457; 2000(2)BomCR475; (2000)1BOMLR550; 2000(2)MhLj749
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners are the students of three different courses in the Management Studies in the first respondent Institute. They joined the course for the year 1994-95. On selection they were required to pay certain amount of Tuition Fees and other amounts for various other purposes such as Identity Card, Enrolment, Library Deposit etc. as prescribed in the Prospectus. The fees continued to prevail during the preceding 3 to 4 years of the filing of the petition in the year 1994.2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that all of a sudden, the 1st respondent put up a notice dated 21-7-1994 on Notice Board that all the 180 students will be required to pay Rs. 9,750/- by way of increase in fees and they were called upon to pay difference in fees by 21-8-1994. The petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the said notice, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned notice which is based on a Circular dated 2-7-1994 is contrary to the provisions of the M...
M/S. Grace Engineers Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom158; 2000(1)ALLMR1; 2000(2)BomCR478; (2000)1BOMLR958; 2000(3)MhLj344
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This is a petition filed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for removal of the Arbitrators as also under section 12 of the Act for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. The facts that are relevant and material for deciding the petition are that the petitioners entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 for carrying out certain works. That contract was terminated in January, 1992. The petitioners, thereafter, submitted their bill for payment of the amounts. The petitioners also addressed a representation calling upon the respondents to decide their claim. But that was not done. Therefore, on 10th July 1992, the petitioners invoked the arbitration clause in the contract. However, the arbitrator was not appointed. Therefore, a petition under section 20 of the Act was filed before this Court and this Court by order dated 6th June 1996 issued a direction for appointment of arbitrators. Ultimately the General Manager, by communication dated20th August 199...
Bijaysingh Mansingh Baid and Others Vs. Mansingh H. Baid
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR580; (2000)1BOMLR760; 2000(4)MhLj217
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioning creditor has moved the Court by way of notice under section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act which hereafter shall be referred to as 'the Act'. By the present Notice of Motion the judgment debtor Nos. 1 and 2 have prayed that the Notice of Insolvency served on judgment Debtors Nos. 1 and 2 be set aside. A few facts may be set out which will assist the Court in deciding the issue in controversy.2. An Award was passed in arbitral proceedings between the judgment creditor, judgment Debtors and others. The judgment creditor has been identified in the Award as belonging to MSB Group. Shri Bijaysingh Mansingh Baid, Sunderdevi Bijaysingh Baid, Jaykumar Bijaysingh Baid, Aruna Ajaykumar Baid, Sanjaykumar Bijaysingh Baid, Minakshi Sanjaykumar Baid and Vinaykumar Bijaysingh Baid are described as belonging to BSB Group. Similarly, Tejsingh M. Baid and Samta Tejsingh Baid are described as belonging to TSB Group. The matter was referred for the deci...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »