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.
Smt. Anusuyabai Narayanro Ghate Vs. Smt. Maktumbi S. Nadaf
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR1; 1999(2)BomCR374; 1999(1)MhLj836
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. An eviction application was filed against the petitioner by the respondent as EA/444 of 1974 seeking possession of the shop room belonging to the respondent. It is not disputed that the said shop room was entrusted to the petitioner by the respondent under an agreement dated 1-2-1972 for conducting of the tailoring business for 11 months. The period of the said agreement was subsequently extended by another agreement dated 1-1-1973. When the aforesaid eviction application was filed before the Small Causes Court under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the petitioner contested the same contending inter alia that the application is not maintainable before the Small Causes Court because he is tenant in possession of the shop room. That plea of tenancy was heard as preliminary issue and the learned Small Causes Court by its order dated 21-12-1981 rejected the plea of tenancy set up by the petitioner....
M/S. Heavy Light Industrial Corporation Vs. the State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR121
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. This civil revision application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16-6-1990 passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, below Exhibit 26 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1276 of 1986.2. Application at Exhibit 26 was filed by the plaintiff for amending the plaint by invoking the powers under O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C., so as to include theclaim for damages to the tune of Rs. 75,000.00; and in order to grant this relief, the necessary amendments giving the particulars of the damages sustained have been proposed in paragraphs 16-A, 18-A, 24-A and 26-A. All these paragraphs point out the particulars of the damages sustained by the plaintiff: and the prayer clause (3-A) which is proposed gives the final figure of the damages sustained by the plaintiff. This amendment application was rejected by the trial Court on a ground that the cause of action for the suit, inspite of the proposed amendments, is dt. 20-10-1986, and, therefore, on th...
Gopal Krishna Baliga Vs. Poona Industrial Hotel Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom302; 1999(3)BomCR157; [2000]102CompCas375(Bom); 1999(2)MhLj301
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this appeal the appellant challenges the order dated 14-10-1996 passed by the trial Court below Exh. 12 in S.C. Suit No. 1724 of 1996 holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff had come to the Court challenging the Resolution passed by the Annual General Meeting of the company held on 11-9-1996, pursuant to Item No. 8 on the Agenda of that A.G.M. Item No. 8 of the Agenda was regarding the allotment of equity shares not exceeding 1,00,000 to the promoters of the company. The trial Court has held that in view of the provisions of section 111 of the Companies Act. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the trial Court has committed a grave error in holding that the provisions of section 111 are applicable in the present case. He points out that the respondent company is a public limited company. He further points out that because of the provisions o...
Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Maegabyte Consultancy Servic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas165(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners have filed the present petition for winding up of the company. While admitting the petition by order dated March 16, 1998, this court restricted the petition to Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act reads as under : '434. (1) A company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts-- (c) if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the company is unable to pay its debts, and, in determining whether a company is unable to pay its debts, the court shall take into account the contingent and prospective liabilities of the company ...' 3. The only averment relied on by the petitioners in so far as ground for winding up is concerned is paragraph 23 of the petition. The petitioners have therein set out that very fact that the cheques issued by the respondents were dishonoured by non-payment also bears out the fact that the company has no resource to meet its liabilities. In the circumstances, the comp...
Mansi Enterprises Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC351Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Mansi Enterprises, the matter relates to the valuation of Bearings imported from Romania. The imports were effected in the year 1984-85. The importers declared price on the basis of the 1983 price lists. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, who adjudicated the matter, observed that the letter of credit was opened on 28.6.1984 and the assessable values had to be determined on the basis of the 1984 price lists. He confiscated the goods and imposed the penalty.2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the appellants. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits.3. We have heard Shri K. Shiv Kumar, JDR for the respondents/Revenue and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case.4. There is no dispute as regards the facts of the case. Bearings of different types had been imported from Romania and different bills of entries were filed. The assessable values were declared based on the suppliers price lists for the year 1983. The goods hav...
P. Dalal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc (A) Airport
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC249Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision dated 14.7.1998 made by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Airport, Mumbai made in Order-in-Appeal no. 64/98-AP(TE-AIR) V whereunder he dismissed the appeal of the appellants. In the appeal, the appellants contended that the Show-cause notice dated 16.8.1994 was barred by limitation as the duty was paid on 28.2.1994. The Collector had rejected the said contentions.2. The appellants imported electrical measuring instrument some time in April 1992 and filed two Bills of Entry whose numbers were 464 dated 2.4.1992 and 8274 dated 24.4.1992 for home consumption. The appellants claimed clearance under Tariff heading no. 9031 and claimed exemption under notifications 109/92 and 121/92. The goods were examined, and assessed to duty and allowed clearance on 24.2.1994. A letter dated 3.8.1994 was issued to the appellant informing the appellant that there was a short levy of 301790 in respect of both the Bills of entry as per ...
Dynaflex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT130Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of duty totalling Rs. 47.52 lacs imposed penalty under Section 11AC and penalty of Rs. 1.00 lac under Rule 173Q.2. Applicant manufactures of low density Polyethylene (LDPG), LDPE.LDPE granules are utilising to produce either lay flat tubings/plastic film which are subsequently fashioned into bags. Application took the credit of the duty paid on LDPE granules and paid duty on the less tax duty of the full duty merged in the first stage of process. In the impugned order the Commissioner has held that since, by in view of Notification No. 67/95, which is determined exempted from duty, and the final product plastic bag is exempted Notification No. 4/97 credit was wrongly taken of the duty paid LDPE.3. Prima facie he finds substantial force in the contention of the advocate for the applicant that the net revenue effect, either way could not defer. If credit was taken of the duty paid on the LDPE, no additional amount of duty to the accrue to the de...
Bhola Wajareshwar Sethi Vs. the Hotel Nandanvan Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR291; 2000(1)BomCR124
ORDERS.B. MHASE, J.1. This civil revision application is directed against the order passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad on 6th July, 1990 on the application Exh. 17 from the Small Cause Suit No. 84 of 1990.2. By the application Exh. 17, the original defendant/present petitioner has raised a question of jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court, Aurangabad, in view of the provisions of section 26 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act of 1887 and section 28(1) of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869.3. The respondent has filed a Small Cause Suit No. 84 of 1990 for recovery of the licence fee amounting to Rs. 1,20,522.60 Ps. The respondent is owner of hotel building consisting of the three floors; ground floor and two floors. On the ground floor, the premises provided a permit room, dining hall, ground floor storage room, lawn, etc. The licence fee has been stated in paragraph No. 4 of the plaint. As in accordance with the agreement, licence fee was not paid and the amount...
Shree Bhairavanath Devasthan, Trust Through Its Trustee and Priest and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR479; 2000(1)BomCR426; (2000)2BOMLR988
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J.1. Heard Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri V.S. Bedre, learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 2. This Civil Revision Application arises from the Regular Civil Suit No. 179 of 1983 filed by the present petitioners. The plaint in the said suit has been returned to the petitioners by order dated 7-10-1983 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parner. The said order of return of plaint was challenged by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 321 of 1983, which is dismissed by the 2nd Additional District Judge at Ahmednagar on 25-7-1989. In the result, the order of the trial Court was confirmed. 3. Before we proceed to consider the controversy, one more fact is required to be stated that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have also filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 168 of 1983 against the trustees of Bhairavanath Devasthan. That suit was also returned by the trial Court. The trial Court has passed common order in respect of both the suits ret...
P.S. Rangnekar Vs. Vanita Mangesh Nadkarni and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR367
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner challenges in this writ petition the order passed on 11th October 1991 by the Bombay City Civil Court in Notice of Motion No. 5201 of 1991 in Short Cause Suit No. 2482 of 1991.The short facts of the case are as follows :--2. One Purnima A. Rangnekar filed a suit in Bombay City Civil Court, being Suit No. 1341 of 1990 against Sulochana Bhalchandra Aras for an injunction, restraining the said Sulochana from dispossessing the plaintiff from the portion of Bunglow known as 'Shiv Niwas', situated at Mahant Road, Vile Parle (W), Bombay on the ground that there was a partnership between the said Purnima and the said Sulochana in respect of sale of Venkyh's Chiken Products. In the said suit, the said Purnima also took out Notice of Motion, and obtained order of status quo initially. The said Notice of Motion in the said suit was dismissed on merits. It is revealed that the said Sulochana, had entered into agreement of sale in respect of the sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »