Mumbai Court August 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.
The Sangli Bank Limited Vs. M/S. Timblo Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Bom195; 2000(2)BomCR106
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Common questions of fact and law arise inboth the revision applications and therefore the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These revision applications arise from Order dated 13th August, 1997 passed by the First Addl. Civil Judge, S.D., Margao in Special Execution Nos. 3/92/I and 6/92/I. By the impugned order, the Executing Court has ordered that the Execution Applications stand duly satisfied and consequently the judgment debtors/respondents are discharged of their liabilities and further that the decree holders/petitioners are ordered to release/discharge/cancel hypothecated goods described in Exh. N to the decree and further to inform the Registrar of Companies to cancel the charge created and registered in the office of the Registrar of Companies under the Companies Act. 3. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the petitioners filed two Execution Applications bearing Nos. 3/92 and 6/92 for ...
Mr. Prakash V. Nichani and Others Vs. the Jai Hind Co-operative Bank L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR28; 2000(3)BomCR518
ORDERMr. A.A. Halbe, President1. These complaints are filed by Mr. Prakash V. Nichani, Haresh V. Nichani, Mrs. Madhuri V. Nichani against the Jai Hind Co-operative Bank Ltd. The complainants are the Account-holders and they have current accounts since last about 5 years. They have been operating these accounts in order to make payments against their own ac-counts with the Bank. The complainants have contended that the complainants more particularly Mr. Prakash Nichani who has filed Complaint Nos. 295, 296, 297 & also 299/97 had applied for the loan on 7-7-97. The loan amount was Rs. 25 lakhs. We cannot lose sight of the another important fact that his brother Ghanshyam Nichani had also similarly applied for the loan of Rs. 10 lakhs on the same date but the same was rejected. The complainant Prakash Nichani had mortgaged his properties situated at Sion valued at around Rs. 60 lakhs. The necessary documents were executed after the loan was sanctioned on 19-7-97. The story of the complain...
Joseph Prabhakar Bangera Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(118)ELT572(Bom)
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Baphna for the petitioner, Mr. Satpute for the respondent No. 2 and APP for the State.2. Petitioner who is an accused No. 20 in complaint case filed by the customs under Section 135 of the Customs Act has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the Order, dated 31-7-1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigad rejecting the petitioner's criminal revision application which was directed against the order of framing charge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Alibag.3. Mr. Satpute appearing for the respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection to the tenability of the petition on the ground that the Order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate directing the framing of charge was an interlocutory order against which no appeal nor revision was provided. However, the petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision before the Sessions Judge, Alibag, and on dismis...
Madhukar Chandrabhan Mohite Vs. Balkrishna Govind Sulakhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR824
A.V. Savant, J.1. By consent of all the learned Counsel, the four Letters Patent Appeals are taken up for hearing together in view of the common question of law arising therein pursuant to the orders passed by the Apex Court. We will briefly indicate the broad facts of these four appeals.2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 126 of 1997 is filed by the tenant against the Judgment and Order dated 10th March, 1997 in Writ Petition No. 6011 of 1996. The appellant is admittedly a tenant of the suit premises protected by the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Bombay Rent, Act'). The respondent-landlord filed the suit before the IInd Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Barshi, District Solapur for possession on the ground of default in payment of rent and permanent construction on 7.1.1987. The suit was decreed on the 11th October, 1995 only on the ground of default in payment of rent. The ground of permanent construction was rejected. The tenant f...
Arvind K. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC485
1. The facts of the case as brought in the show cause notice dt.12.2.90 are as follows:-- A percel containing cut and polished diamonds of total weight of 132.71 carats was entered for export by Shri Arvind K. Shah, Proprietor of M/s. A.K. International. The customs documentation such as invoice, declarations and purchase orders were also filed. The shipping bill was filed in the name of M/s. A.K. International. This parcel was initially detained and later seized by the DRI. The show cause notice does not indicate that the statement of exporter was ever recorded. Statement of one Ashok V. Shah is mentioned in the show cause notice. As per this statement at the instance of one Shri Laluprakash, he had given to Shri A.K. Shah an invoice indicating the sale of diamonds which were letter seized, but that no diamonds had been given by him to Shri A.K. Shah. On the basis of this single statement, the show cause notice alleged that the diamonds were illegally imported and also that they were...
Enjay Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC78
1. Appeal taken up for disposal with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The appellant imported a consignment of goods described as aluminum skylight panels and claimed clearance at concessional rate of duty under Notification 110/95. This notification permits concessional rate of import on capital goods imported under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG scheme) and subject to the importer undertaking to fulfil the export obligation specified. Capital goods are defined as plant, machinery, equipment, and accessories required inter alia for rendering the services. The appellant's claim for the benefit of the notification was provisionally accepted and the goods cleared accordingly. Subsequently, while finalising the provisional assessment, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs held that while the contention of the importer that the hotel building in which the skylight panels would be fitted could be plant, and hence capital goods but the material for its constru...
Special Prints Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC483
1. All these eight appeals have been filed against Orders-in-Original Nos. 39/MP/97 and 49/MP/97 dated 28.8.1997 and 30.9.1997 respectively whereunder the adjudicating authority, namely the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat confirmed show cause notices issued by him whereby he demanded additional duty of Rs. 1,40,34,955.20 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs on M/s. Special Prints Ltd. and also penalties of Rs. 30 lakhs on each of the three traders and confirmed the show cause notice dated 29.4.1991. By another order the Commissioner confirmed the show cause notice dated 9.9.1992 and demanded additional duty amounting to Rs. 86,10,393. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 85 lakhs on M/s. Special Prints Ltd. and penalties of Rs. 15 lakhs on each of the three traders. He also ordered confiscation of land, building etc.but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 25 lakhs. He directed that interest of 20% to be paid in case of delay in payment of duty.2. The appellants M/s. Special Pr...
Shri Shafi Ali Yunus Kazi Vs. Shri Shantaram Baba Gurav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR67
ORDERPer G.R. Bedge, Member. 1. The appellant is challenging the order passed by the District Forum, Ratnagiri in Complaint No. 3/98 whereby the appellant has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 36,500/- because of the confiscation of the 3 wheeler by the Police.2. The complaint before the Forum was that on 30-3-96, the respondent/complainant purchased a three wheeler for an amount of Rs. 36,500/-. The complainant paid the entire amount to the appellant on 21-4-96 and took over the delivery . But the appellant did not transfer the requisite documents to enable the complainant to get his name recorded on the various papers. The complainant submitted before the Forum that it is not enough to hand over the vehicle, but it was the responsibility of the seller to hand over all the documents and provide the legal ownership of the vehicle to the respondent/complainant. Because of the failure of the appellant, the name of the respondent/complainant remained to be recorded in the R.T.O.'s rec...
CaptaIn Shankar Roy and Another Vs. Mrs. Severina Kumar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR176
ORDERPer Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.1. In these appeals, order dated 6th May, 1997, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Testamentary Suit No. 20 of 1984 and Testamentary Suit No. 19 of 94 is impugned.2. Briefly stated, the facts, which gave rise to these appeals, are as under:One Maria Rita (Molly D'Souza) died at Bombay on 14th May, 1983. She had two sons, Vernom and Joyce and two daughters. Severina Kumar and Gloria. She was owner of an immovable property situate at 15, Convent Avenue, Santacruz (West), Bombay admeasuring about 314 sq.mtrs. or thereabout together with building standing thereon known as 'La Petite Flour' along with other immovables. Vernom has settled in Goa. Joyce has settled in London. Gloria married one Mr. Mayra Misquitta in 1968 and Severina married one Mr. R.C. Kumar in November 1973.After the death of Maria Rita (Molly D'Souza), (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), the parties in the present proceedings have staked their claim to her property on th...
Ali Jawad Ameerhasan Rizvi and Others Vs. Indo French Biotech Enterpri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR1; 2000(1)BomCR321; 1999(3)MhLj514
ORDERPer Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. This petition, in public interest, was filed in February, 1998 and is pending since then. Orders passed from time to time clearly show that hours and hours of Court time were spent on consideration of the grievances made by the petitioners. The petitioners are four in number. As many as 16 reliefs have been claimed. There are 15 respondents including Minerals & Metal Trading Corporation Limited, Securities & Exchange Board of India, Commissioner of Police, Criminal Bureau of Investigation, Reserve Bank of India and Union of India, In substance, the petitioners' grievance as set out in the writ petition is that they had invested huge amounts in 'Project Grape Investment Scheme' of respondent No. 1 and they were forced by respondent No. 3 to accept equity shares of respondent No. 2 in lieu of surrender of their investment in respondent No. 1 Company. They say that rosy picture of high returns was shown to them by respondent No. 3 because of which they were...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »