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.
M/S. Maharashtra Trading Agency Vs. Sou. Rucha Kedar Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR66
ORDERPer A.A. Halbe, President.1. The short judgment will serve the purpose as the facts are simple and we find the patent error on the part of the District Forum, Sangli in allowing the claim. The few facts are that the respondent/ complainant deposited under the Demand Draft, Rs. 21,000/- with the appellant Maharashtra Trading Agency. The said amount was deposited on 23-5-89 and the said deposit was to carry 20% interest. The period expired on 23-5-95. The complainant, therefore, moved for the refund along with interest. But the same was declined. The District Forum did not agree with the question of jurisdiction and limitation raised on behalf of the appellant. However, we find that on complainant's own showing, the period expired on 23-5-95 and the complaint has been filed on 3-10-97. Even under the existing limitation prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint should have been filed on 23-5-97 latest. The gap of 5 months have not been explained by the complainant ...
Ronak Industries Ltd. Vs. the Elphinstone Shipping Wearing Mills Co. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR25; (1999)101BOMLR171
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Dharmadhikari for the petitioners and Mr. Abhyankar for respondent No. 1.2. The petitioners in this case are the tenants and respondent No. 1 is the landlord. The landlord had filed a suit for ejectment before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The same was decreed. The Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal confirming the order and decree of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai and hence this petition.3. When the petition came for hearing Mr. Abhyankar appearing for respondent No. 1 raised preliminary objection to the rights of petitioners to prosecute further this petition or to the rights of petitioners to be heard on merits in this petition. The objection raised by Mr. Abhyankar was of the following nature and based on the following facts:-According to Mr. Abhyankar this petition was admitted on 5th April, 1983 when rule and interim stay in terms of prayer Clause (g) was granted on usual terms (Emphasis added) Here italiciced. According to Mr. Abhyankar on ...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Gopal Balkrishna Akotkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR431
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard learned A.P.P. Smt. Pawar for the State/Petitioner and Mr. D.B. Savant for the respondent.2. A motor truck bearing No. Plate No. UP-15-F/3821 was intercepted by the Inspector of State Excise at Check Post insuli Tal. Sawantwadi. Dist. Sindhudurg situated at the border of Maharashtra and Goa and it was found that the truck was carrying foreign liquor from U.P. to Goa. When the Excise Inspector inquired about T.T.P. i.e. through transport permit or pass from the driver, it was found that the driver did not have that permit. Therefore, the Inspector seized the vehicle along with the contraband goods and prepared a panchanama and filed a case against respondent under Section 66(1-b), 65(a), 108, 80, 81, 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act.3. The respondent applied before the Magistrate for releasing the goods. His application was rejected. He, therefore, filed a criminal revision application bearing No. 32 of 1997 before the Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg. The Sessions ...
Union of India Vs. Prakash Mehra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: [1999]107TAXMAN71(Bom)
1. Leave to amend the revision, i,e., to add the State as party respondent, is granted. Amendment is carried out immediately. Heard APP for State along with Mr. Mehta for the petitioner and Mr. Verma for respondent No. 1.2. The petitioner-Union of India through Income-tax department has challenged the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, dated 7-8-1997 by which he discharged the accused under section 276-0 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The accused was prosecuted by the Income-tax department by filing a complaint under section 276CC of the Act, i.e., for not filing the returns for the year 1986-87 within time or on due date. According to the prosecution, the due date f or filing returns f or 1986-87 was 31-7-1986, that the accused had applied for extension of time and same was granted up to 31-10-1986. However, the accused filed the return on 22-6-1988 and, hence, he was prosecuted by filing a complaint. The Trial Court examine...
Vithu Hira Mahar (More) @ Vithu Pandu Sonawane, Since Deceased by His ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR89
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Both the petition and the second appeal were filed by the one and the same person, namely, Vithu Hira Mahar. It appears that he died during the pendency of this petition and his legal heirs have been brought on record.2. In writ petition petitioner Vithu challenged the Order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 6-4-1985 as per Exhibit 'K' to the petition and in the second appeal appellant Vithu had challenged the Order of the District Judge, Pune, (P.V. Kakadae) dated 18-6-1985 in appeal filed by him. This appeal before the Additional District Judge was filed by Vithu against the order of the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 2353 of 1979 by which the trial Court had decreed the suit of the respondents - plaintiffs.3. Though the writ petition and the second appeal are arising out of different orders, common questions of fact and law are involved in both of them and hence they were tagged together and were heard together.4. There is a chequered history to the liti...
Modistone Limited Vs. Modistone Employees Union and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR99; 1999(4)BomCR477; (1999)1BOMLR668; (1999)IILLJ1008Bom; 1999(3)MhLj241
ORDERA.P. Shah, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 29-3-1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 478 of 1976, a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. 2. The petitioner is a company engaged in manufacture of automobile tyres, tubes and flaps. The 1st respondent is the union and represents the workers of the petitioner company. A settlement dated 28-9-1973 was signed between the petitioner and the Firestone Tyres employees union then representing the employees of the petitioner company revising the service conditions and also agreeing payment of bonus. Under Clause 27 of the said settlement the company agreed to continue the rate of payment of bonus at 20% without ceiling to all employees and also agreed to pay at the rate of 2% of the annual...
Gulab Gangaram Shindore Vs. Kumarpal Somchand Shah (deceased) through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR256
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Thorat for the petitioner and Mr. Jahagirdar for the respondents.2. Petitioner is a landlord and respondents are the tenants. Impugned order was passed under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Rent Act'). The property is a house property situate within the Municipal limits of Nasik i.e. Municipal House No. 972 equivalent to C.T.S. No. 1438 situate in Bohorpatti, having shop premises on the ground floor admeasuring 15' x 15' with oata.3. The original respondent was the tenant of the petitioner on rent of Rs.72/-plus Rs. 8.64 as permitted increases. According to the petitioner, respondent was a habitual defaulter and therefore the petitioner gave notice dated 12-6-1978 calling upon the respondent to pay the arrears of rent. The notice was received by the respondent on 15-6-1978 but the rent was not paid and hence the petitioner filed the suit for eviction. This suit was decreed by t...
Henmant Hariba Sonwalkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1999
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR308
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same set of facts and a common impugned Judgment we are disposing them off by one Judgment.2. Nine persons namely (1) Hanmant Hariba Sonwalkar (2) Jagannath Dagadu Kharat (3) Sahebrao Dagadu Kharat (4) Mohan Dagadu Kharat (5) Sou. Radhabai Jagannath Kharat (6) Sou. Suman Sahebrao Kharat (7) Sou. Sindhu Mohan Kharat (8) Dagadu Krishna Kharat and (9) Dattu Hariba Sonwalkar, were tried by the Sessions Judge, Satara for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 of the I.P.C., 325 read with 149 of the I.P.C. 324 read with 149 of the I.P.C. and 323 read with 149 of the IPC.In addition:-(i) Hanmant Hariba Sonwalkar was tried for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.;(ii) Jagannath Dagadu Kharat was tried for offence under Section 325 of the I.P.C.;(iii) Sahebrao Dagadu Kharat and Mohan Dagadu Kharat were tried for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. (for causing hurt to Dada Raghu Kharat);(iv) Sou. Suma...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›