Mumbai Court June 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.
Jagdish Gandhi and Another Vs. Satish B. Vaidya and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR625; 1999(4)BomCR424; 2000(1)MhLj103
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. The plaintiffs seek a declaration to the effect that plaintiffs No. 1 is the inventor as well as owner of the formula submitted by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 under Reference Code No. P.V. 150896 and the plaintiff No. 1 alone shall be entitled to all the benefits arising out of the said formula and that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have no right of whatsoever nature to make use of the formula or the formula which is a sham variation or modification thereof or derivation therefrom.2. The plaintiff No. 1 claims to be Researcher in ancient Indian Science including Indology, Archaeology, Numismatics, Ayurveda etc. He claims to have studied Ayurveda in depth on his own for about three decades. Plaintiff No. 2 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Defendant No. 1, according to the plaintiffs, made series of representations to the plaintiffs which misled the plaintiffs to enter into an agreement with defendant No. 1 on 15th August 1996. T...
Baba @ Gulam Raza HussaIn Hadi Tapti Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1999
Reported in: 1999BomCR(Cri)890; 1999CriLJ4618; 2000(1)MhLj164
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the Judgment and Order dated 4-2-1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 505 of 1993, convicting and sentencing him to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay of fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year for the offence under section 304 I.P.C.2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :--There were differences between the appellant and the deceased Rajendra Tatyaba Zambre-Patil on account of a premise to be used for the purposes of a hotel.On 7-8-1993, at about 11.30 to 11.45 a.m. in 210, Mangalwar Peth, near Cafe Canada Hotel, Pune, Harishchandra Kachi P.W. 3, Sanjiv Pawar P.W. 5 and the latter's brother-in-law were trying to settle the differences between the appellant and the deceased. In the meeting, the differences could not be resolved and it was agreed to hold another meeting two to three days later. In the meantime, the appellant went to the counter, took out a...
Khalil Abdool Samad Vs. Government of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ855Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner, along with other employees, who are named in Annexure 'A', has filed the present petition under Article 226 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondent employer for payment of their legal dues. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Company is closed and all the assets are in the hands of the Court Receiver. We have enquired from him whether he had approached the Court Receiver. The answer was that the Court Receiver refused to pay any amount to the employees. We have also enquired from him whether the employees had exhausted the alternate and efficacious remedy under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and the Industrial Disputes Act or even the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The learned Advocate replied in the negative. These are the alternate and efficacious remedies, provided under the labour legislations, to which the petitioners have not resorted to and have straightaway filed the...
Mohammed Ilyas Ahmed Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR104
Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The Petitioner Is the brother of one Mohammed llyas Ahmed, who was detained by the order dated 6th June, 1998 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the Act) and also by the Government Order No. PSA 1098/8 SPL. 3(A). Annexure 'A' is the said order of detention and Annexure 'B' is the grounds of detention which was passed on the same day; both were served on the detenu on 26.6.1998.2. The detention order has been challenged by the Petitioner on several grounds. However the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mrs. A.N.Z. Ansari has pressed before us only one ground. The said ground has taken as ground 4(v) of the petition. The said ground in short is that, in para 6 of the grounds of detention, though it has been stated that the search of the briefcase belonging to the detenu resu...
Pmp Auto Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC360Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for consideration in this appeal is a short one and that is whether deduction claimed on account of interest on receivables from the normal price was admissible or not.2. The Assistant Collector denied the deduction on the ground that such interest formed part of the price of the goods and that the prices remained the same whether payment was made on any date within the general credit period from the date of delivery or thereafter also. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the logic of the Assistant Collector distinguishing the facts before him from those in -the judgments cited before him. Hence the present appeal.3. We have heard Shri S.S. Gupta, C.A. for the appellants and Shri K.L.Ramteke for the Revenue.4. The present controversy stands settled in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of GOI v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. . In the previous judgment , which was later recalled, the Supreme Court in paragraph 16 had observed that in the case of MRF also the aspect of i...
Peddington Chemical Inds. (i) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT511Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These five applications involve common issue and are therefore being disposed of in this common order.2. The issue is whether the product "alcodegrease" manufactured by the applicants is classifiable under sub-heading 3810.00 as pickling preparations as claimed by the assessees or whether they fall under sub-heading 3402.90 as cleaning preparations as maintained by the department.3. We have heard Shri D.P. Bhave, Advocate for the applicants and Shri A.K. Chatterjee for the department.4. Shri Bhave refers to the sub-notes under the HSN to sustain his case but clearly concedes that he does not have an opinion on the classification from an expert or expert agency to counter the opinion relied upon by the department. We have perused the sub-notes under both the contesting headings. Pickling preparations are normally acid based but can have alkaline base also. Degreasing preparations are normally alkaline but can have acid base also. The sub-notes list certain chemicals as components of...
Bhor Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC27Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When these stay applications came up for hearing, it appeared that at this stage itself the appeals could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, this was done.2. The appellants claimed 2% cash discount in the various price lists filed by them. At subsequent dates show cause notices were issued seeking levy and recovery of duty in cases where it was not shown that the cash discount was passed on to the buyers. Before the Assistant Collector written and oral submissions were made. The Assistant Collector did not accept the contention of the assessee that cash discount was a permissible deduction from the sale price irrespective of whether it was passed on to the customers or not. He observed that the decision in the case of Jenson & Nicholson (India) Ltd. was not applicable to the assessee's case. On this ground he confirmed the demands in all seven show cause notices. The assessee then filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). Before the Commissioner (Appeals) sev...
Sagar Shamrao Suryawanshi Vs. Annasaheb Keshavrao Ingavale, Deceased b ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR280; 2000(1)BomCR158
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard Mr. Naik for the petitioner and Mr. Rane forthe respondents. 2. A short point is involved in this petition which is filed by the tenant and that is, whether there was compliance by the tenant of section 32-O of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). 3. Admittedly, the petitioner claims to be a tenant for the year 1973-74. There is no dispute that in 1973-74 he was minor and so called agreement of lease or tenancy was entered into on his behalf by his guardian. The tenant gave a notice of his intention to purchase this land under section 32-O of the Tenancy Act on 2-8-1974 and thereafter filed an application for purchasing the land on 2-9-1975. 4. In this back ground it is contended that the purchase price was fixed and tenant paid the purchase price of Rs. 6,000/- to the landlords. However, the original landlord died on 6-1-1975 and about seven years thereafter his heirs i.e. the present respond...
Shrimati Bhimabai Tukaram Balkawade Vs. Shri Bhiku Pandurang Balkawade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR622; 2000(1)BomCR636; (2000)2BOMLR985; 1999(3)MhLj936
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard advocate Mr. Sali for the petitioner and advocate Mr. Katikar for the respondents. 2. The M.R.T., whose order is under challenge, has according to the petitioner, on the one hand accepted the status of the respondent as deemed purchaser from 1-4-1962, but on the other hand has also observed that since the landlady was widow on 1-4-1962, the right of the tenant got postponed. The petitioner landlady who was the widow at that time is still continuing to be so, and therefore, according to the petitioner, if the tenant respondent is the tenant of widow, then he cannot be said to be deemed purchaser on 1-4-1962 and if he is deemed purchaser on 1-4-1962 his right cannot be postponed because the petitioner is the widow. According to the petitioner's advocate, the observations of the M.R.T. are contrary to the facts and to the legal position. If the right of the tenant to purchase the land is postponed, then it must get postponed till the widow is alive and no ...
Dilip Arjun Dhavale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1999
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR123
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.2.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 136 of 1994, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us.2. In short the prosecution case runs as under :On 29.4.1994 at about 10.30 a.m. while the deceased Vithal Kamble was having tea along with Damu Chambhar, opposite Deepak Pan Merchant in Marias Chowk in Solapur the appellant came with a vessel containing petrol and threw petrol from the same on the person of Vithal Kamble. Thereafter the appellant set Vithal Kamble on fire with a match stick. Vithal Kamble raised cries hearing which P.H.C. Gade P.W. 3, constable Jadhav P.W. 7, Babu Koli P.W. 8, Udhav Mhaske P.W. 11 and some others came. Udhav Mhaske threw a gunny bag on the person of Vithal Kamble and some others poured water on him. Babu Koli enquired from Vi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »