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.
Banwarilal H. Khaitan Vs. P.L.A. Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR4; 1999(2)BomCR428; 1999(2)MhLj30
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. Leave under Rules 147 and 148 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (O.S.) Rules, 1980 is granted to the plaintiffs to take out the Notice of Motion in terms of the draft Notice of Motion handed in. Notice of Motion made returnable forthwith. Defendants waive service of Notice of Motion. By consent, Notice of Motion heard forthwith.2. The plaintiff has filed this suit for a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the exclusive copyright holder in respect of the suit film SARPHIRA and the defendants have no right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever to telecast/release, exhibit and/or exploit the film in any manner whatsoever. Prayer is also made for injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or any persons claiming through or under them in any manner infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in respect of the suit film by releasing, exhibiting and exploiting or telecasting the suit film on any of the medias in any manner. Thi...
Shri Appaji Babaji Sonale, Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR329; 1999(2)BomCR470
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner challenges in this writ petition, an order passed in review by the Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay in Review Application No. 9 of 1988 in Appeal No. 21 of 1988, where the order passed by the Appellate Court has been set aside by the Reviewing Authority by its order dated 9th December, 1988 in exercise of its power for review. 2. The main dispute is that the allotment of plot in favour of the first respondent was illegally cancelled and the same was allotted to some other person. This cancellation was initially challenged before the original authority and the original authority has dismissed the suit filed by Appaji Babaji Sonale, whose legal representatives have filed this writ petition. Against that dismissal of the suit, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority the Co-operative Appellate Court. The appellate Court, as indicated earlier, allowed the appeal and set aside the original authority's order. Against...
Mackinnon Makenzie and Co. Ltd. Vs. William Nativity Pereira and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR636; [1999(82)FLR547]; 1999(2)MhLj906
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. The petition is filed by the company employer against the order of reinstatement and back wages dated 14-6-1996 given by way of Award in Reference (IDA) 207 of 1982, Exh. U, page 360. It is passed under caption of final award i.e. Part II Award. This was preceded by Part I Award, copy of which is produced at page 248, Exh. L.2. The Reference has a root in the action that was taken by the company against the respondent -workman as per charge sheet dated 21-4-1975, Exh. A page 45 having a statement of account annexed to it at Exh. B page 47.3. At the relevant time, the respondent-workman was working with the company and as a part of his duty had to draw substantial amount from thecashier of the company and used it for paying the sailor who might have come to the port of Bombay in different vessels as also to defray the expenses of the ship and its crew. The sailors are referred to as ratings.4. In order to understand the nature of transaction, one may look at the v...
M/S. Marine Container Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)BomCR760; [2001]106CompCas108(Bom)
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition against the Company under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. The statutory notice dated September 22, 1997 has been served on the Company. In reply by letter of October 24, 1997 the Company stated that the demand as made was not tenable and contended that there were serious disputes. It was further set out that the conduct of the petitioners was malicious and vexatious. The interest and charges was also disputed. It is contended that the petitioners received excess payments by way of interest. It was further pointed out that the Company could cancel the transactions entered into by the Directors which were detrimental to the business interests of the Company and its shareholders. Lastly it is contended that there was a bona fide dispute. It is further averred that the Company is liable to pay the amounts decided by the Competent Court or by mutual negotiations.The case of the petitioners is that the Company ...
Fibro Engineers Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT304Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This case was posted for hearing of the stay application. During the hearing, it appeared that the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal at this stage. With the consent of both parties this was done.2. In the impugned order, Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 3,48,806 /-has been denied on the observation that the description of inputs and classification of input in the duty-paying document did not tally with that shown in the declaration.3. I have heard Shri N.K. Pandit, Consultant for the appellant and Shri Ashokan for the revenue. I have seen the declaration as well as the document under which the inputs were received.4. The declaration is for CRGO Electrical Steel Sheets and coils as well as strips and coils. The Bill of Entry show secondary defective CRGO Electrical Steel Sheets in interleaved coils. The classification shown in both the documents was under Heading 7225.W. I find that the description given in the declaration is sufficient to cover such steel sheets in the def...
Abdul Razak Hazi Ismail Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT283Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this case foreign exchange was seized from the shop premises as also from the persons as five individuals who were present in the shop, apart from the owner of the shop namely Abdul Razak Haji Ismail, the present appellant. Abdul Razak Hazi Ismail in his statement claimed that he was the dealer in foreign exchange. The other persons present also corroborated the statement and claimed that they had come to the shop for exchanging the currencies which were seized from their persons. The driver of Abdul Razak Haji Ismail confirmed that Abdul Razak Haji Ismail was dealing in foregin exchange. The officers seized the foreign currency in the reasonable belief that it was smuggled goods. They also seized Indian currency amounting to Rs. 4,13,600/- from the shop and residential premises of Abdul Razak Hazi Ismail, in the belief that the same was liable to confiscation being sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The Additional Collector in the impugned order confiscated the foreign exchange a...
Uttam Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC225
1. The case was posted for hearing of the stay application but was taken up for final disposal with consent of both sides.2. In a visit to the appellant's factory the officers noted excesses and shortages in the stock of finished products as well as raw materials. They also found certain instances where Modvat credit was wrongly availed on certain capital goods. A show-cause notice was issued dated 22-12-1997 seeking confiscation of excess goods and recovery of duty on the goods found short. Allegations as to denial of Modvat credit were made as also for imposition of penalty on the appellant under various rules. The Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 24-7-1998 against which the present appeal has been filed.In the appeal memorandum, the contest made is on two points only. The first is the confirmation of demand to the extent of Rs. 3,17,200/- on the basis of shortages found in the final products described in Annexure B to the show-cause notice. The second point of contest i...
Modern Paper Converters Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC441Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellants vide their miscellaneous application dated 30.1.1999 made a request to decide their appeal on merits. Therefore the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the appellant.2. The appellant has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 14.12.1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.3. In the impugned order the appeal of the appellant filed before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was dismissed only on the ground that the appellants had not affixed court fee stamp on the Order-in-Original.5. In this case the appellant filed a classification list effective from 15.5.1992 and claimed therein the rate of duty at 25% in respect of their products in view of Notification No. 14/92. The classification list was approved by the competent authority at the rate of 40% in view of notification No. 20/93. The appellant filed appeal against this order before the Collector of Central Excise and along with their appeal papers appellants also filed Orde...
Vishwas Vasantrao Mugalikar Vs. Jyoti D/O Murlidharrao Mugalikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR20; 2000(1)BomCR421
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The order under challenge is dated 27-6-1990 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad below Exhibit 285 from H.M.P. No. 39 of 1983. 3. The application at Exhibit 285 has been preferred by the petitioner in H.M.P. No. 39 of 1983 for production of documents wherein it has been stated that these documents are not produced as they were reserved for putting them in the cross-examination of the witness of the respondent and therefore they be allowed to be produced and exhibited. 4. The question of exhibiting these documents cannot be considered while granting production of documents because unless and until the documents is proved by leading evidence by the party who relies on that document and/ or admitted by the other side, it cannot be exhibited. In the present case, the evidence of the petitioner is over and therefore, there is no question proving those documents by the petitioner himself. However, the p...
The Goa Foundation Vs. Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR550
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The petitioner challenges the permission granted to the respondent No. 1 for construction of a Beach Resort in the property bearing Survey No. 28/1, 29, 33/1 and 33/2 of Nagorcem beach by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the environment clearance and the construction licence for the construction of the said Beach Resort has been granted in CRZ-I area in violation of CRZ Notification dated 19-1-1991 and inspite of the fact that the area is comprised of sand dunes and requires protection.2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent No. 1 applied to Town and Country Planning Department of Government of Goa for permission of construction of the Beach Resort on 8-1-1996 along with a contour and site plan of the area. After inspection held on 23-2-1996 by the Special Committee of Goa State Committee on Coastal Environment, the project was approved by the respondent No. 3 by resolution dated 15-3-1996 and thereupon the file regarding the...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »