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.
Minguel Francis D'Costa Vs. Sultan Sulamali Karim Chhatriwala and othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)BomCR164
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. On 12-10-1996 the petitioner filed a suit as Short Causes Suit No. 5671 of 1996 in the City Civil Court, Bombay against respondent No. 1 for injunction restraining him from disturbing the petitioner's possession on premises bearing No. 7/C, Ground Floor, Sunbeam Chambers, New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020. The petitioner claims his tenancy over this premises. While bearing interim application, the learned Judge found that the dispute is really between the landlord and tenant and the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, on 15th October, 1996 the said suit was withdrawn with notice to respondent No. 1. On the same day, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration as Suit No. 1794 of 1996 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against the respondent No. 1 for declaring that he was tenant of the respondent No. 1 in respect of the aforesaid premises and also for the injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from dispossessing the petitioner from th...
Minguel Francis D'Costa Vs. Sultan Gulamali Karim Chhatriwala and othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)BomCR170
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. On 12-10-1996 the petitioner filed a suit as Short Causes Suit No. 5671 of 1996 in the City Civil Court, Bombay against respondent No. 1 for injunction restraining him from disturbing the petitioners's possession on premises bearing No. 7/C, Ground Floor, Sunbeam Chambers, New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020. The petitioner claims his tenancy over this premises. While hearing interim application, the learned Judge found that the dispute is really between the landlord and tenant and the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, on 15th October, 1996 the said suit was withdrawn with notice to respondent No. 1. On the same day, the petitioner filed Rent Act Declaration Suit No. 1794 of 1996 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against the respondent No. 1 for declaration that he was tenant of the respondent No. 1 in respect of the aforesaid premises and also for the injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from dispossessing the petitioner from the ...
Shri Balkrishna Harischandra Patil Vs. Shri Madhukar Madhavrao Deshpan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR3; 1999(3)BomCR160; 1999(2)MhLj304
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner herein. The suit was filed by him as Civil Suit No. 1851 of 1987 on 3-12-1987 for eviction of the respondent on the ground of arrears of rent and also bona fide requirement. The Principal Small Causes Court at Pune, on both the grounds granted decree in favour of the petitioner and ordered eviction of the respondent. An appeal being Civil Appeal No. 506 of 1989 was filed before the Additional District Judge, Pune. By the impugned judgment, the lower Appellate Court set aside the decree of eviction and consequently suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. I heard Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Anturkar and Mr. R.S. Deshpande for the respondent.3. The admitted fact is that the property in suit situated at 4/36, Sahakari Sevakanchi Sahakari Vasahat, Erandawane, Pune was originally belonged to one K.M. Patil. Said K.M. Patil let out the building for residential purpose for the rent of Rs. 250/- in the year 1970. The pe...
Patel Engineering Works Vs. Shri Shridhar Babaji Chaukekar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR120; 1999(4)BomCR203; (1999)2BOMLR466; [1999(82)FLR580]; 1999(2)MhLj876
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Court, at Mumbai in Complaint U.L.P. No. 1206 of 1993. The respondent No. 1 workman had moved the Court with the prayer that unfair labour practice is adopted by the petitioner-company in respect of the complainant-workman inasmuch as he has been working with the company since the year 1989 and before original respondent No. 4 of the trial Court since 1983, he has not been made permanent as a fitter.2. The stand of the company all along has been to the effect that the workman was employed by the company from amongst the casual labourers who would be waiting for the opportunity to get the job for the day at the gate of the company. This would necessarily mean that whenever there is job available with the company from amongst the casual workers if somebody is to be assigned the job the concerned workman has to be available at the gate of the company. The company is engaged in ship repairs works. This...
Sou. Shraddha Vs. Ajit Krishnaji Medhekaqr and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC474
J.N. Patel, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.The applicant/wife has initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which have been registered as Case No. E 119/97 and are pending before the Family Court at Nagpur. The non-applicant No. 1 /husband has initiated two proceedings, one under the Guardians and Wards Act, which is pending before the 3rd Additional District Judge, Sangli, and registered as Case No. 143/97, and the other is a Hindu Marriage Petition for divorce filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Satara, and is registered as Hindu Marriage Petition No. 72/98.2. It is submitted by the applicant/wife that the proceedings initiated by the non-applicant No. 1 /husband under the Guardians and Wards Act and the Hindu Marriage Petition to be transferred to the Family Court at Nagpur where her application for maintenance is pending.3. The learned Counsel for the non-applicants has no objection if the proceedings under the Hindu Mar...
H.C. JaIn Vs. R.K. Synthetics and Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2922
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. This application under Sections 397 and 482, Cr.P.C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the Petitioner (Original Accused No. 2) in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with a prayer that the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against him on 19-1-1999 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai, in C.C. No. 1372/S/1998, while rejecting his application for exemption, be quashed.2. The factual matrix in which this application arises is that the petitioner is Original Accused No. 2 in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 29th October, 1998 was the first date fixed in the said Court. On the said date, the petitioner, as also other accused persons were absent. An application for their exemption was preferred and the case was adjourned to 13th January 1999. On 13th January 1999, again the petitioner and ot...
National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. (A)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT827Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal was posted for admission. Since the issue is covered by earlier judgments of the Tribunal, with the consent of both sides, the main appeal was taken for disposal.2. The assessee claimed "Hytherm 500" as an input under Rule 57A. The Commissioner denied Modvat on the consideration that it was a fuel, confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the submission that it was an aid for machinery and held that Rule 57A did not cover the same.3. Shri M.V. Ravindran, ld. Advocate relied upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of Sipta Coated Steel Ltd. - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 553 (Tribunal) in which this very input was held as eligible under Rule 57A. This judgment was followed in the appellants own case decided by Final Order No. C/117/98/WZB, dated 13-1-1999. Following the ratio of this judgment I allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order, directing consequential relief to the extent warranted. The stay application also stands disposed of....
Siyaram Silk Mills Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC422Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The appellants herein manufactured man-made fabrics for the purpose of manufacturing the fabric they also manufactured the yarn at single stage. They pay duty on yarn at single stage and captively consumed it for doubling and multifolding the said yarn. Thereafter the said double yarn or multifolded yarn is used captively without payment of duty in the manufacture"of man-made fabric.2. Question which has arisen in this case is whether after having paid the duty on the single yarn, another duty liability arises on the double/multifolded yarn or not. Lower authority has saddled the appellants with another duty liability on the double/multifolded yarn.The appellants however, have contended that after having paid duty on the single yarn no further duty on double multi-folded yarn arises.3. Ld. Advocate Shri R.K. Kapoor in support of his case as mentioned above relies on Apex Court's Judgment in the case of CCE, Jaipur v.Banswara Syntex Ltd. .4. He has relied in particular on para 7 and...
Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC533
1. Application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 5.04 crores approximately and penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs under Rule 173Q.2. Advocate for the Applicant says that the applicant manufacture in its factory various intermediate products which were exempted from duty under notification 121 /94 as amended by notification 67/95. The notification exempts such goods if used in the manufacture of specified final products. The applicant, however, did not avail of the exemption but paid duty at the rates specified in the tariff and took modvat credit of the duty so paid towards the discharge of the duty on the final products. He contends that it is now settled law that it is upon the assessee to avail, or choose not to avail, the benefit of exemption notification. He cites the following decisions of the Tribunal in support:Polychem Ltd. v. Collector 3. He contends that the Collector's reliance on the observation of the Supreme Court in Kailashnath v. State of U.P. - AIR 1957 SC 790, to the effect that...
Larson and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC609Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dated 25.4.1991 issued on 16.5.1991.2. Arguing for the appellants, Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate raised the jurisdiction point. He contended that the Collector, who has adjudicated the matter was not empowered to adjudicate. In other words, in view of the particular jurisdiction with reference to the manufacturing activities took place at Jamshedpur, he submitted that party has raised specific plea with reference to a jurisdiction point but the same has not been dealt with as can be seen from the Order. He referred to the internal page-9 of the impugned order-in-original which reads as under: The assessee were granted personal hearing on 8.3.1991 Shri D.B. Shroff, Advocate, P.D. Shah, Advocate, A.B. Khadikar, Manager, Central Excise and N.N. Wagh, Manager appeared for the hearing. Shri D.B. Shroff, contended that the Noticee supplied to TISCO at Jamshedpur, Dolomi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »