Mumbai Court February 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.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. CaptaIn Ram Moorjani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR608; 1999(3)BomCR45; 1999(2)MhLj821
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was a pilot for Air India and he was insured with the plaintiff company for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. During the course of his employment, the defendant suffered bodily injury or suffering from illness and therefore after his medical examination, initially he was declared a temporary disabled person and thereafter on his examination by Air Force Central Medical Examination (A.F.C.M.E.), New Delhi, he was declared permanently medically unfit for flying duties due to Coronary Artery Disease. Therefore after the aforesaid illness was confirmed by the authority approved by the plaintiff, the plaintiff paid Rs. 2,28,000/- from out of the policy Rs. 72,000/ being already paid- and consequently the entire amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the said policy was paid to the defendant.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time of payment of Rs. 2,28,000/ - the defendant voluntarily and on his own accord gave an under...
Art Wood Shop and Another Vs. Shri J.B. Patil (Dead) Through His Heirs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR324; 1999(3)BomCR144; (1999)2BOMLR56; 1999(2)MhLj482
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner is a tenant. He challenges in this writ petition, the orders passed by the courts below evicting him from the suit premises which is a shop at the ground floor of C.T.S. No. 358, Nana Peth, Pune. It was belonging to the respondent's father. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner No. 2 died and his legal heirs were impleaded in his place. Eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises was sought by the respondent's father, original plaintiff on the ground of arrears of rent, bona fide requirement and non user of the premises. Both the courts found that there are bona fide requirement and non user of the premises. However, the ground of arrears of rent has not been found favour with the plaintiff.2. I heard Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mohan Pungaliya and Mr. H.S.S.Murthy for respondents.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the evidence adduced in this case, submits that the conclusions arr...
Shri Ramchandra Shankarrao Baste and Another Vs. the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR547; 1999BomCR(Cri)547
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocate for the petitioners and A.P.P. for the State/respondents. Both these petitions have been filed for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the respondents. The petitioners in both the petitions are common and common question was involved, and therefore, I am disposing off both these petitions by common order.2. Two complaints under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act came to be filed at the instance of Food Inspector, Sangli on behalf of the State of Maharashtra against the petitioners and others. The 'Magistrate ordered to issue process which is challenged in the present petitions.3. It was contended by Mr. Raje that petitioner No. 1 was the Managing Director of Rajarambapu Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and petitioner No. 2 was the Chairman thereof. The said Sakhar Karkhana has appointed achemist for the purpose of maintaining quality of sugar manufactured by the said Sakha...
Sanjay Tukaram Wankhede Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR277; 1999CriLJ2923; 1999(2)MhLj613
ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the applicant, and Shri Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.2. The present criminal revision application is preferred by the applicant/ accused only in respect of order of sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Buldhana by judgment dated 20-1-1996 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1994. The applicant was prosecuted and convicted for the offences punish able under sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code by the trial Court.For the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, the applicant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of rupees one thousand, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one more month and for the offence punishable under section 337 of Indian Penal Code, the applicant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and pay fine of rupees five hundred, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for on...
Automation and Control Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC243Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Three applications have been filed for stay and waiver of deposit of demand of Rs. 4642/-, Rs. 1607/- and Rs. 8481/-, being the interest on advances which may be earned by the assessee appellant and it should be added towards valuation of the final products.2. When these applications came up for hearing, with the consent of parties and after waiving pre-deposits, Appeals have been taken up for disposal, as the question for determination fall in a narrow compass.3. The appellants before us are carrying on business at Pune in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter Heading 84.28, 84.31, 84.79, 90.31 and 90.33 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Whenever the assessee appellant received orders from their customers, they manufactured the goods according to the requirements and specifications agreed to between the parties. It appears to safeguard the interest of the appellants, they received certain advances to the tune of 20 to 30% of the value of th...
thermo Plastic Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT658Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the matter was called yesterday adjournment was requested on the ground that Advocate for the appellant Shri R. Parthasarathy was busy in the airport with some matter. We did not consider it as a valid ground for adjournment. The matter was carried forward to today.2. We have perused the appeal memorandum and heard the Departmental Representative. The appellant filed two classification lists for cords for hearing aids manufactured by the appellant claiming classification under Heading 9021.00 of the tariff and the benefit of Notification 53/94. The Assistant Collector issued notice proposing to deny the benefit of notification on the ground that condition for the exemption was not complied, that parts of the hearing aids should be used in the factory of production of the hearing aids. After considering the cause the Assistant Collector ordered that the benefit of the notification would not be available and ordered approval of classification list "at appropriate rate of duty". ...
Associated Laboratories Pvt. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC878Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Associated Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. have filed the appeal against the order-in-original No. 25/94 dated 21.2.1994 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Bombay-1.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants manufacture patent or proprietory medicine. They were claiming the benefit of notification No. 161/66 dated 8.10.1966 and notification No. 245/83 dated 13.9.1983 which provided a specified discount on Maximum Retail Price (MRP). A show cause notice dated 22.2.1984 was issued to them demanding central excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,34,121.57 paise for the period from 21.6.1981 to 31.1.1984 on the ground that the benefit of the said notifications was not available to them as the conditions laid down in the notifications were not fulfilled by them. The Collector, in the impugned order, confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 89,265.83P holding that the appellants had not filed the price-list required under para 19 of the Drug (Price Control) Order (DPCO) in the prescribed...
Kantilal S/O Dwarkadas Shah Vs. Shri Sahakari Graha Nirman Sanstha and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR288; 2000(1)BomCR122; 2000(2)MhLj630
ORDERS.B. MHASE, J.1. The order challenged is dated 16th February, 1987, passed by Joint Civil Judge Senior division, Aurangabad in Execution Petition No. 27 of 1984 below Exh. 36. The execution petition pertains to the execution of the award of the Co-operative Court, passed under section 91 bearing No. ACR/509/82 dated 8th April, 1983. The present petitioner is a member of the said society and as a member of the said society, which is tenant ownership co-operative housing society, this petitioner was to get a plot for house from the said society. However, when without following the procedure of terminating the membership his membership was terminated and the plot which was to be allotted to him was not allotted, the dispute started. What is pertinent to be noted is that the award passed by the Co-operative Court is to the following effect:'The dispute is decreed. It is decided and declared that the disputant is a member of defendant No. 1 society and he is entitled to get an allotmen...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trustees of the Trust for Relatives of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR12(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court for the assessment year 1978-79 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the terms of the trust deed dated May 5, 1973, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-trust in not a discretionary trust and consequently the provisions of Section 164(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not applicable ?'2. The assessee claimed before the Income-tax Officer that Section 164(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), was not applicable in the case of the assessee-trust. The Income-tax Officer did not agree with the claim of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who allowed the claim of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the tru...
Sudipta Nag Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR223]; (1999)IIILLJ1331Bom
N.J. Pandya, J.1. The petitioner who is a workman was employed by the respondent No. 2 on October 1, 1988 and was put in on probation for three months. It was further extended by order dated January 1, 1989. On January 28, 1989 an incident occurred which led to his eventual termination on February 16, 1989. The workman succeeded in getting a reference made before the Labour Court, Bombay and the learned Presiding Officer of the Seventh Court dealt with Reference IDA No. 96 of 1991 by his order dated November 21, 1996. He disallowed the prayer for reinstatement but directed the employer-respondentNo.2 to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the workman. This order of the trial Court is not challenged by the employer.2. The workman of course is not satisfied with this order and seeking reinstatement he has filed the present petition. The termination order is at Exh. A. Page 12. In the first paragraph while informing the petitioner that his services are terminated with effect from February...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »