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.
Baburao Soma Bhoi Vs. Abdul Raheman Abdul Rajjack Khatik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR423; 2000(1)BomCR306; 2000(1)MhLj481
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chalisgaon on 1-9-1989 rejecting the Misc. Application No. 11 of 1987 filed by the present Petitioner for Condonation of delay and restoration of the Regular Civil Suit No. 59 of 1983. 2. The main crux of the matter is as to whether the service of summons in Regular Civil Suit No. 59 of 1983 was proper one. 3. The Regular Civil Suit No. 59 of 1983 was filed by the respondent for getting the possession of the suit land from the defendant. At present this Court is not supposed to go into the main controversy. However, the summons which was issued to the defendant in the present matter was served on the petitioner under Order V, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and when it was found that on 13-7-1983 the defendant is absent, the suit proceeded ex parte and decree for possession has been passed. 4. Mr. P.R. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner...
J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom329; 1999(3)ALLMR145; 1999(2)BomCR386; [2001]103CompCas42(Bom); 1999(2)MhLj829
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. By consent, these two appeals are taken up for hearing and disposal together. Heard both the learned Counsel; Mr. Doctor for the appellant original defendant No. 1 and Mr. Kadam for the contesting respondent No. 1 original plaintiff. We have also heard Mr. Kothari and Mr. Vasudeo for some of the other respondents-financing institutions.2. Appeal No. 59 of 1999 is against the order dated 11th December 1998, passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber Summons No. 1037 of 1998 in Suit No. 4411 of 1997. Under the impugned order, Chamber Summons taken out by the appellant-defendant challenging the order dated 3rd March, 1998 passed by the Court Receiver fixing the ad hoc royalty at Rs. 50,00,000/- per month (Rs. 25,00,000/- for each of the two immovable properties) has been dismissed. The Court Receiver, by his Order dated 3rd March, 1998 has fixed the adhoc royalty at Rs. 50,00,000/- per month in respect of the two immovable properties regarding which the Receiver ...
Shri S.P. Naik Vs. the Board of Trustees, Mormugao Port Trust and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR531; [2000(84)FLR328]; (2000)ILLJ831Bom; 1999(3)MhLj351
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner challenges the imposition of penalty awarded to him as a result of departmental inquiry against him. The penalty awarded is withholding of two annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect and that the period of suspension be treated as 'non duty' and as such, the subsistence allowance already paid shall be final and no further pay and allowance would be payable to the petitioner for the said period. This penalty was awarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide memorandum dated 7-1-1993 against which the petitioner had filed an appeal, which was dismissed. The petitioner besides challenging the said penalties awarded to him, also seeks direction to consider the petitioner for the promotion to the post of Statistical Analyst with retrospective effect, that is to say, from 19-7-1985; direction to consider the petitioner to the post of Junior Statistical Officer from 1990 as well as consequential benefits arising thereunder. Prior to...
People's Union for Civil Liberties and others Vs. the State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR608
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. These three writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the Mandamus against the respondents who are the State of Maharashtra, the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, Mumbai, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, and other officials working under them and Coroner of Mumbai, (i) directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to furnish the particulars regarding the number of persons killed in last one year in police encounters, their names, addresses, the circumstances in which these persons are killed, the enquiries, if any, conducted with respect to the said killings and any other relevant information and the action taken, if any, by them: (ii) directing the respondent No. 1 to register offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant enactments against the Police Officers, if found prima facie responsible for the violation of the fundamental rights and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and other rel...
Rambrish K. Shukla and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR668a
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This Civil Revision Application arises out of an order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay in Notice of Motion No. 6190 of 1995, whereby the decree passed by that Court was set aside by exercising the power under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below proceeded on the basis that the decree which was passed on 13.10.1995 was an ex-parte decree, and that sufficient grounds have been made out by the Respondents to set aside the same. The circumstances was explained by Respondent No. 2 herein as to how he had abstained himself from the Court which resulted in passing a decree against him on 13.10.1995.2. It is stated therein that the petitioner landlord instituted a suit for seeking a declaration that the part of the property occupied by respondent No. 2 was an encroachment on their property. A request was made to respondent No. 1 - Municipal Corporation to demolish the encroachment and also a prayer for injunction to rest...
Bhagirathibai @ Bhagwati Vs. Ashok and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC429
D.D. Sinha, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application is directed against the order dated 14.7.1995 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 965/1994, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge al- lowed the same and set aside the order of maintenance dated 28.2.1994 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur.2. The applicant is the wife of non-applicant No. 1 and the marriage was performed in the month of March, 1990 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs at Nagpur. The applicant after marriage was residing with the non-applicant No. 1 at his house. The applicant and non-applicant No. 1 stayed together happily only for a period of 15 days and thereafter the non-applicant No. 1 and his parents started ill-treating the applicant on account of demand of money. The life of the applicant at the house of the non-applicant No. 1 became miserable and intolerable due to cruelty meted out to her by the non-applicant No. 1 and his parents and, therefore,...
Velcord Textiles Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(81)LC393(Bombay); 1999(111)ELT351(Bom)
ORDERS.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 18th January, 1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, rejecting petitioner's application for stay/waiver.2. Since the controversy involved in the present writ petition is a narrow controversy, both the learned Advocates appearing for the parties state that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission. Hence Rule is issued. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, writ petition taken up for hearing and final disposal.3. In the impugned order, we find that no reasons have been given for refusing dispensation of the condition of pre-deposit under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The order passed is a stereotype order. Even prima facie, reasoning requiring the assessee to pre-deposit the duty amount has not been given. Under the above circumstances, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The Commi...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Himpushp Engineers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT605Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In terms of F. No. 342/5/91-TRU, dated 7-7-1992 the facility of deemed credit on certain inputs was made available. The assessees in this case, took such deemed credit on brass scrap. After issuing the Show Cause Notice the Asstt. Collector examined the issue whether the concerned entry covered brass scrap or not. The findings were in the negative resulting in denying of the deemed credit and also in imposing of penalty on the assessees. The assessees then filed an appeal. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Khandelwal Metal -1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 ruled that the description "copper waste and scrap" covered brass scrap also. Against this order, the present appeal has been filed by the revenue.2. Shri Ashokan, arguing the case submitted that the Ministry's order covers only the scrap of primarily metal and does not cover scrap of alloys. In doing so, he relied upon the wording of the order and also the Trade Notic...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Kanoi Steel Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC266Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Kanoi Steel Corporation, the respondent to this appeal imported a consignment of cold rolled mirror finish stainless steel of AISI-304 quality, and claimed 10 clearance in terms of two advance licences.These licences had been issued against exports of stainless steel utensils made of stainless steel of AISI - 304 specification and obtained by the respondent by transfer from the original licensee. The department found that the value of the exported goods was Rs. 65/- per kg. whereas the value of the imported steel was Rs. 135/- per kg. and concluded from this that the imported steel was of a higher quality than the used in the export product. It also found that the imported goods were mirror finished. There was no nexus between the exported goods and the imported goods. Notice was issued proposing denial of benefit of Notification No. 204/92. The Asstt. Collector did not accept the contention raised before him and denied the benefit of notification. On appeal from that order, t...
Prestige Counting Instruments P. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC156Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant in Appeal No. E/4642/94 is a manufacturer, inter alia of counting and measuring instruments. It manufactures some of these instruments under licence from two foreign companies Samson of Germany and Jaquet of Switzerland. The instruments manufactured in pursuance of the agreements bore on them as inscription to that effect. It under licence Samson-West Germany or under licence Jaquet-Switzerland. These are in addition to the name of the manufacturer, which also appeared on the goods. The department issued a notice quashing to deny the Notification 175/86 which the assessee was availing of on the ground that using these expression amounted to display of the goods of brand name or trade name of these foreign persons who are not entitled to the benefit of notification. The notice also contain a proposal to confiscate 51 instruments valued at Rs. 3.03 lakhs approx. details of which, on the date of visit of the officers, were not entered in the RG 1 register. Penalty on the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »