Mumbai Court July 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.
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC625Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The appellant is a public sector undertaking with the Government of India engaged in the refining of crude oil, manufacture of lubricating oil and marketing such products. In the course of these operations, it received in its bonded tanks at Mazgaon and Sewri, without payment of duty consignments of lubricating oils base stock by pipeline without payment of duty from its petroleum refinery at Mahul. Applicant cleared stocks of such oil from its tanks on payment of duty and took them into its factory for use in the manufacture of blended lubricating oil. The duty was paid by means of a document referred to as outturn certificate. Applicant took modvat credit of the duty so paid and utilized such product (sic) towards payment of duty on its finished product. In the common orders impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has held that the outturn certificate was not a valid document under Rule 57A (sic) for the reason that it did not contain all the particulars specified in Rule 52A...
Antonio Salvador Francisco Joaquim Celemente Mesquita and Another Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR612; 2000(2)BomCR185
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This revision arises against the Order dated 2nd September, 1998 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 239/93 by the Civil Judge J.D., Margao. By the impugned order, the trial Court has refrained Issue No. 8 and stayed the suit. 3. The Issue No. 8 was originally framed as under:- 'Whether the defendants prove that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit since the defendants are mundkars of the plaintiffs?'It was the contention of the respondents that the said Issue should be refrained as under:- 'Whether the defendants prove that they are the mundkars of the plaintiffs and hence this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?'Simultaneously it was also submitted by the respondents that the respondents have already filed an application for declaration of their mundkarship rights before the concerned Mamlatdar and therefore the suit should be stayed and kept sine die. Both the contentions were opposed ...
Jawahar Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Vs. P.T. Mehta and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR390
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. By the present chamber summons, the Jawahar Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Co-operative Society has prayed that Court be pleased to set aside the orders passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master dated 17-3-1997 and 23-8-1998. The matter arises thus:2. Mr. Prataprai Trambaklal Mehta was the original plaintiff. He filed a suit against Jayant Nemchand Shah and Mrs. Ranjan Jayant Shah, who were the original defendants. The suit bearing No. 2434 of 1987 came to be disposed of in terms of the Minutes of order. The decree holders thereafter applied for execution of the award as the judgment debtors failed to comply with the Minutes of Order. The decree, in so far as the prayers are concerned, has been executed. The decree holders however moved the Prothonotary and Senior Master in the Execution Application for an order against the society. By the impugned order dated 17-3-1997 the Prothonotary and Senior Master ordered the Sh...
Association of Engineering Workers Vs. Permanent Magnets Ltd. and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR5; 1999(4)BomCR498; (1999)3BOMLR391; 1999(3)MhLj303
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 226 challenges the order dated 24th November, 1998 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 1557 of 1990, a proceeding under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short).2. The 1st respondent is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of various types of magnets. The petitioner is a trade union, registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and represents some of the workmen of the respondent company. The petitioner union filed Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 1557 of 1990 in the Industrial Court, Mumbai alleging unfair labour practice on the part of the company under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Union has alleged that the management has not paid subsistence allowance to 17 workmen who have been put under suspension by the management pending the domestic enquiry. It is alleged that the company paid only the basic pay and dearness allowa...
Ms. Pallavi Shashikant Todkari Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR74; 2000BomCR(Cri)74
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner is the sister of the detenu Parag Shashikant Todkari against whom the order of detention was passed by the first respondent on 20-2-1999 under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders & Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter called the Act), detaining him in custody for one year. The said order is produced along with the writ petition as Annexure 'A'. Along with the said order on the same day the grounds of detention was also issued by the first respondent against the aforesaid detenu Parag Shashikant Todkari. The petitioner challenges these orders by way of this writ petition.2. Mr. Marvadi the learned Counsel for the petitioner though raised several contentions in the writ petition, during hearing he pressed before us only one ground. He submits that there was inordinate delay in passing the detention order from the last prejudicial activities. The last prejudicial...
Shri Anup R. Kantak Vs. State Through the Panaji Police Station and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR600; 2000BomCR(Cri)600; 2000CriLJ1078
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.Rule. Heard forthwith, by consent.1. This revision application arises from order dated 30-1-1999 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 30/1998 by the Sessions Judge, at Panaji. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge while allowing the revision application filed by the respondent No. 2 herein has set aside the order dated 15-4-1998 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 64/1997/B by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Panaji and has further directed that the possession of the suit shops should be restored to respondent No. 2 who had the possession of the same on the date of his application i.e. on 4-9-97 subject to any order which any of the parties may obtain from the Civil Court. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 15-4-98 confirmed the interim order dated 11-9-97 passed by the Magistrate in the said case and thereby held that the possession handed over to the petitioner by the police pursuant to the order dated 11-9-97 passed ...
Yeshwant G. Chikhalkar and ors. Vs. Killick Nixon Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ998Bom
ORDERKochar, J. 1. Appellants, who are the original Complainants-employees had filed Complaints of Unfair Labour Practice under Section 28 read with Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. (For convenience sake they would be referred hereinafter as the 'employees'). They sought a declaration from the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai that the notice dated July 2, 1998 giving lay-off to them from July 3, 1998 was an unfair labour practice. The nub of their complaints was that the lay-off given to them was not in accordance with the provisions of law as the employer-company had violated the mandatory provisions of Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the I.D. Act') as it had failed to obtain required permission from the Government and that it had also violated the law in respect of seniority prescribed under Section 25-G and Rule 81 of the I.D. Act. The employees had...
Mr. Jacinto R. Santana and ors. Vs. Mr. Baboi B. Naik and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR333
R.K. Batta, J.1. Heard. Rule. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith. With their consent, Rule is heard forthwith. Heard Advocates for the parties.2. There is no dispute that Constituted Attorney cannot appear in the capacity of the party who constituted such attorney but can appear as a witness. In this case, upholding the objections raised by the respondents, the Trial Court directed that the testimony of Constituted Attorney P.W. 1 recorded partly, stands discarded and the party, namely, the plaintiffs were directed to step into the witness box. Order XVIII, Rule 3A of the C.P.C. provides that where a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage. Admittedly no such application under Order XVIII, Rule 3A of the C.P.C. was filed and the Constituted Attorney...
Kuldeo Prakash Bhagwandas Gond Vs. Dena Bank and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ324Bom
A.P. Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the Awards (Part I) and (Part II) dated May 20, 1997 and October 17, 1997 respectively made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai in Reference (CGIT) 11/46 of 1996 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.2. The petitioner Kuldeo Prakash Bhagwandas Gond belongs to Gond caste. Under the Presidential Order Gond caste is declared as Scheduled Tribe by virtue of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. However, the State of Uttar Pradesh has recognised Gond Caste as Scheduled Caste. In other States including the State of Maharashtra Gond Caste is continued to be regarded as Scheduled Tribe. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by a Banking Service Recruitment Board, the petitioner applied for the post of cashier-cum-clerk under Scheduled Tribe category. In the application form the petitioner had mentioned that...
British Bank of the Middle East Vs. Marcus S. Lobo and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR894]; (1999)IILLJ1299Bom
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The appellant-The British Bank of the Middle East has, in this appeal, challenged the order dated September 22, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1310 of 1998 dismissing the said writ petition filed by it.2. Briefly stated, the facts, which lead to the filing of Writ Petition No. 1310 of 1998, are as under:Respondent No, 1 was employed as a clerk with the appellant bank in the year 1975. On August 25, 1993 one of the officers of the appellant bank, Ms. Phiroza Garda received by post an envelope addressed to her which contained an undated and unsigned letter addressed to Ms. Dinaz Avari of the Award Staff and two empty covers of condoms. The unsigned and undated letter was written in indecent and vulgar language. Ms. Garda handed over the said letter and the envelope to Ms. Avari.3. Ms. Avari, after going through the language of the letter and after seeing the handwriting, suspected that, it might have been written by respondent No. 1 as sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »