Mumbai Court March 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.
Sujata Verbatim Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT778Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported a consignment of application software known as "WordStar 6.0" in December 1992 from a supplier from Singapore and declared the price to be US $ 25 per set.2. The Custom House, on the basis of retail sale price of the product in a popular magazine of 1991 proposed to enhance the value to US $ 163/- per set. The Additional Collector has confirmed the valuation of the product at this price after confiscating the goods under Clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act permitted them to redeem only on payment of duty. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence this appeal.4. The Additional Collector's order is somewhat unusual and not entirely free from ambiguity. Whenever confiscation of goods is ordered, Section 125 of the Act makes it mandatory in the case of goods the import of which is not prohibited goods give an option to redeem them on payment of fine. The Additional Collector has held that no fine is payable and only the appropriate duty has to be paid. Th...
Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil and Another Vs. Godawaribai W/O Laxmansingh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom235; 1999(2)ALLMR507; 2000(1)BomCR111; 1999(2)MhLj272
ORDERB.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard Shri Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Bajpai, learned Advocate for the respondents Nos. 1 to 5. The respondent No. 6 is duly served. 2. This Civil Revision Application, Latur raises a question as to how the concept of sufficient cause in the matter of condonation of delay is to be interpreted and what should be the approach of the Court in exercising the discretionary power in this behalf. 3. The Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein (original plaintiffs) had filed Regular Civil Suit No 56 of 1983 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nilanga of district Latur. The suit was for partition and separate possession of the suit property. The respondent No. 6 herein -- original defendant No. 1 is the husband of plaintiff No. 1 Godawaribai and father of original plaintiffs Nos 2 to 5. The said suit was proceeded ex parte and was ultimately decreed on 14th October, 1986. 4. The original defendants Nos. 2 and 3 wanted to challenge the ex parte ...
Shri Dhananjay R. Kulkarni and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom287; 1999(3)BomCR379; (1998)2BOMLR393; 1999(1)MhLj323
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. Rule, returned forthwith. 2. Respondents Nos. 3 to 8 are various colleges under the purview of University of Pune. The said university is respondent No. 2. State of Maharashtra is respondent No. 1. 3. The validity of the permission granted by respondent No. 1 to respondents Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 8 for starting Bachelor of Computer Science Course (B.C.S. Course, for short) is under challenge in this petition. The permission has been granted by respondent No. 1 in exercise of power under proviso to subsection (5) of section 82 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (for short, the Act), According to respondent No. 1, these colleges fall under the category of exceptional cases and valid and good reasons have been recorded for granting approval to the said colleges to start B.C.S. Course, though their applications were not recommended by the University. The State Government, it is claimed, has wide powers under the aforesaid provisions to grant permission to any i...
Dr. Archan Marian D'Mello Vs. the Dean, Goa Central College, Bambolim ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR377; 1999(3)BomCR669
ORDERN.P. Chapalgaonkar, J.1. This is a petition by a student who seeks admission to Post-Graduate Course leading to M.D.S. Degree in the Dental College, Goa. The petitioner passed the Final B.D.S. Examination of the Goa University, held in June, 1997 and completed her internship on 1st August, 1998. In the month of December, 1998, the Dean, Goa Dental College invited applications for admission to M.D.S. Course. Goa University has Post-Graduation Course in only two subjects, Prosthodontics and Orthodontics. In all five seats, three in the first speciality and two for second speciality are available. Applicants who have B.D.S. Degree of the Goa University or other recognized University and have completed Paid Rotating Internship of one year and have registration updated with the State Dental Council and are resident of the State of Goa for a period of ten years preceeding the last date of receipt of applications, are eligible to apply. Candidates who have graduated from Goa Dental Colle...
M/S. Arte Indiana Vs. M/S. P. Mittulaul Lalah and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)BomCR233
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The plaintiffs have moved this Court for leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent.2. Clause 14 reads as under :-'14. And we do further ordain that where plaintiff has several causes of action against a defendant, such causes of action not being for land or other immovable property, and the said High Court shall have original jurisdiction in respect of one of such causes of action, it shall be lawful for the said High Court to call on the defendant to show cause why the several causes of action should not be joined together in one suit, and to make such order for trial of the same as to the said High Court shall seem fit.'From the facts on record it is an admitted position that there has been no infringement of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, in respect of the Trade Mark which the plaintiffs claim within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The contention of the plaintiffs, however, is that sub-section (2) of section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 p...
B.S.i. Limited Vs. M.V. Cristian-c and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Bom320; 1999(4)BomCR302; 1999(2)MhLj783
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. This the defendants notice of motion for dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction as against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that on the date when the suit was filed i.e. on 21-8-1995 or 11-9-1995 the defendant No. 1 ship m.v. 'CRISTIAN-C' was not in Indian waters and since the action against the defendant No. 1 is the action in rem and since the ship was not in Indian waters at the time of filing of the suit, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. It was also contended that so far as the defendant No. 2 is concerned, they did not carry on business within the jurisdiction of this Court.2. Counsel for the plaintiffs raised preliminary objection to the tenability of this notice of motion, firstly, on the ground that there were directions of this Court to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to file their written statement and unit and unless these directions were complied with and written statement was filed, the defendant Nos. 1 and ...
Dada Machindra Chaudhar and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR601; 1999CriLJ4009; 1999(3)MhLj325
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellants aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25-7-1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1996, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo 9 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under sections 302 read with 34 I.P.C. have come up in appeal before us.Along with the appellants were tried four others viz. Sau. Tai Tanaji Khade, Sau. Changuna Gorakh Chaudhar, Rajendra Gorakh Chaudhar and Samir Gorakh Chaudhar, but they have been acquitted vide the impugned judgment. The State of Maharashtra has not impugned their acquittal by preferring an appeal. 2. In short the prosecution case runs as under :The deceased Fulabai Machindra Chaudhar was the second wife of Machindra Chaudhar P.W. 1. It is said that she had married Machindra three years prior to the incident and a year after the death of his first wife. Machindra and F...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahavir V. Nayak and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR313
ORDERDr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This criminal revision application is filed by the State, being aggrieved by the order dated 3rd April, 1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 817 of 1991. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge discharged accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. 2. It appears that offence was registered as C.R. No. 299/90 at Ghatkopar Police Station against the accused under sections 307, 143 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. After committal procedure was over, the said C.R. was converted into Sessions Case No. 817/91, and thereafter, application for discharge under section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code was made. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, after perusing the papers, and after hearing both the sides, was pleased to discharge original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. 4. I have heard Mrs. Jyoti Pawar, learned A.P.P appearing for the State. It appears that Ms. D.M. Shah was appointed to represent the r...
Pandharinath Sakharam Thube Vs. Kum. Surekha Pandharinath Thube and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2919
ORDERPratibha Upasani, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed, being aggrieved by the order dated 19th March, 1991, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Criminal Revision Application No. 148 of 1989, partly allowing the Revision filed by the applicants (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein). By this order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge upheld the finding of the lower Court that the applicant Sulochana is not legally wedded wife of Pandharinath, petitioner herein. However, as far as the issue of claim of maintenance of daughter of Sulochana viz., applicant No. 1 was concerned, he remanded the matter back for inquiry into the alleged paternity of Surekha vis-a-vis Pandharinath and then to decide the application of maintenance of Surekha in accordance with law. The parties were directed to appear in the lower Court on 19th April, 1991. However, this Court (Coram : M.G. Chaudhari, J.) vide its order dated 15th July 1991 granted ad-interim stay in terms of prayer (c) and the matter is ...
Shri Pandharinath Sakharam Thube Vs. Kum. Surekha Pandharinath Thube a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC235
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed, being aggrieved by the order dated 19th March, 1991, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Criminal Revision Application No. 148 of 1989, partly allowing the Revision filed by the applicants (respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein). By this order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge upheld the finding of the lower Court that the applicant Sulochana is not legally wedded wife of Pandharinath, petitioner herein. However, as far as the issue of claim of maintenance of daughter of Sulochana viz., applicant No. 1 was concerned, he remanded the matter back for inquiry into the alleged paternity of Surekha vis-a-vis Pandharinath and then to decide the application of maintenance of Surekha in accordance with law. The parties were directed to appear in the lower Court on 19th April, 1991. However, this Court (Coram : M.G. Chaudhari, J.) vide its order dated 15th July, 1991 granted ad interim stay in terms of prayer (c) and the matter is han...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »