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.
Cipla Ltd. Vs. Cipla Employees' Union and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1023Bom
1. The Original Petitioners (the Respondents) before us have filed the present Civil Application praying to speak to Minutes of Order dated July 19, 1999 passed by us. Hereinafter the parties would be referred to as 'the Union' and 'the Company' (the original petitioners and the respondents respectively).2. We have again heard both the learned Counsel for some time. In spite of our detailed order it appears that the Company has not accepted the letter and spirit of our order and has deliberately tried to misunderstand it. Our attention is drawn to a letter dated July 28, 1999 addressed by the Company to one of the Machine Operators (Original Petitioner No. 2). By the said letter, though he was admittedly a Machine Operator, he was allotted the work of cleaning of acid shed racks, boxes and carbouys and its area and Acid Shed. In the said letter it is alleged that he refused to do that work and remained idle for the entire day. It appears that even thereafter the Company kept on insisti...
Morarjee Gokuldas Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. Maruti Yeshwant Na ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1008Bom
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. The 1st respondent workman came to be employed in the petitioner Mill sometime in 1961. The Maharashtra Girni Kamgar Union called upon the employees in textile industry in Mumbai to resort to strike from January 18, 1982. The strike was declared illegal by order of Labour Court dated February 11, 1982. Though the strike was called by an unrecognised union not registered under the provisions of the Act it received wide response from the employees in the Cotton Textile Industry. A large number of employees were thrown out of service with scant regard being paid to principles of natural justice or any procedure under the law and the Standing Orders. The respondent employee appears to be one such victim.2. According to the employee he had not participated in the strike and after tension was reduced to some extent he reported for work but he was not taken back in service by the Mill. According to him on several occasions he approached the Mill but several other employee...
Shri Satyawan Laxman, Jagtap Vs. Smt. Vimal Saatyawan Jagtap and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR724; 2000BomCR(Cri)724; 2000(1)MhLj419
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. The present writ petition arises in the execution proceedings for the execution of the order of payment of maintenance granted to the respondents who are the wife and children of the petitioner in the following circumstances.2. The petitioner was married to the respondent No. 1 on 27-5-1975. The wife had initially filed Maintenance Application against the husband in the year 1980 which is numbered as Misc. Application No. 76 of 1980. In the said application order dated 10-8-1983 for maintenance was passed in favour of the wife whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month to the respondent No. 1-wife. Thereafter second application was filed being Misc. Application No. 182 of 1986. That application was allowed by the Ld. J.M.F.C. Daund by judgment and order dated 17th June 1991 and the respondent-wife was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and each of the two children were granted maintenance at the r...
Famm Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC811
1. These three appeals involved the single issue and that is the includibility of the notional interest taken by the manufacturers from the buyers of their goods in the assessable value. These appeals are therefore disposed of in this common order.2. We have heard Shri Rohan Shah for the appellants and Shri Deepak Kumar for the Revenue.3. The appellants manufacture tailor made machines. Against the advances taken by them, they gave to their customers bank guarantees which were kept alive for the period of three months after the deliver (sic) [delivery] of the goods. In three show cause notices it was alleged that the notional interest on the deposit so taken was includible in the assessable value of the machines. The charge was upheld by the lower authorities resulting in the confirmation of demand totally amounting to Rs. 12,44,625.22. In the order arising out of one show cause notice, a penalty of Rs. 3,57,109.78 was also imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order uph...
Convertor Adhesives and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC796Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of polyester or polyethylene resins, and of polyisocyanate when cleared together. It is not in dispute that the resin and polyisocyanate are mixed together to be used as adhesives. It is also not in dispute that these goods are cleared in sets each; consisting of one of the resins and of a polyisocyanate. The classification claimed by the appellant of these goods under Heading 35.06 in its classification list filed from time to time 1988 onwards had been approved by the department. The department however, noted that the appellant had filed classification lists in 1992 and 1993 for export of the products in which each of the resins and the polyisocyanate was classified under Chapter 39.Subsequent enquiries by the department led it to believe that each of the products should be rightly classifiable under Chapter 39. Seven notices were therefore issued, proposing recovery of differential duty and imposition of penalty...
Neptune Decor and Biren Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT657Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The common question to be considered in these appeals is the liability to penalty under Section 112 of the Act on Biren Shah, the sole proprietor of M/s. Neptune Decor, the appellant before us. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Additional Collector (impugned before him) that the appellant under-valued two consignments (one dealt with in each appeal) of polyethylene.2. We are not required to directly consider the question of valuation of the goods. The option given to the importer for redeeming the goods on payment of fine after they were ordered to be confiscated under clause (m) of Section 111 not having been exercised, be disposed of by the Department. The value of the goods is therefore only of academic importance except insofar as it relates to the quantification of penalty, if any, imposable on the appellant.3. The Advocate for the appellant contends that penalty was not imposable on the appellant for the reason that ...
Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC813
1. The facts leading to these appeals are the same. The appellants are the same. These three appeals are therefore being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants manufactured aerated waters using soft drink concentrate. A formula was given by the assessees to the department indicating the ratio between the concentrate used and aerated waters manufactured. On examination of actual utilisation of the concentrate the jurisdictional officers were of the opinion that the concentrate shown to have been used should have produced a far larger quantity of aerated waters than that shown in the production registers of aerated waters. A series of show cause notices were issued relating to different periods alleging short levy of duty. In a number of adjudication orders the adjudicating officers confirmed the demands and imposed penalties. In the single impugned order leading to these three appeals duty amounting to Rs. 38,45,172/- was confirmed and a penalty of the same amount was impos...
Chander Shekhar Malhotra Vs. Nirlon Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR41; 2000(1)BomCR638; (2000)ILLJ83Bom; 2000(2)MhLj635
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for a declaration that the plaintiff continues in employment even after 9th January, 1999 and is entitled to work and salary. Notice of Motion has been taken out with a prayer for injunction restraining the defendants from acting on the letter of termination dated 9th January, 1999, and for a direction to pay to the plaintiff his monthly salary in full from January, 1999 and month to month basis thereafter.2. The plaintiff was appointed by the defendant No. 1 as General Manager (Personnel and Administration). The defendant No. 1 is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, which is engaged in the manufacture of synthetic fibres and yarn. On 19th November, 1993, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) sanctioned Rehabilitation Scheme for defendant No. 1. The B.I.F.R. also directed the defendant No. 1 to appoint the defendant No. 2 as part-time Chairman. He was so appointed on 29t...
Amogshidh Annappa Shendge and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR163; 2000BomCR(Cri)163
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this Criminal Appeal the appellants challenge the Judgment and Order dated 4-5-1995 passed by the IVth AdditionalSessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 239 of 1994, convicting and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to undergo one years R.I., for the offence under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.It is pertinent to mention that along with the appellants were tried two others namely Mohan Nimbalkar and Pandu @ Pandurang Yadgiri Utkamwar but, they have been acquitted vide the impugned Judgment. The State of Maharashtra has not challenged their acquittals by preferring an appeal under section 378(1) Cr.P.C.2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under:-Between the deceased Rahul on the one hand and the appellant -Amogshidh Shendge and the acquitted accused - Mohan on the other hand, there was an enmity. On 20-4-1991 Rahul's cousin Bhimrao was murdered and for the said murder, companions of Amog...
Abdul Karim Mohd. Shaban Khan Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR886
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition arises out of a challenge made by the petitioner, assailing his detention by order dated 8-9-98 passed by the first respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act. The grounds of detention, also dated 8-9-98, was served on the petitioner on 10-9-98, along with the detention order.2. Though several grounds have been pleaded in order to challenge the impugned detention order, Mr. Prakash Naik the learned Counsel for the petitioner pressed before us at the time of hearing only one ground, namely, that there was an undue delay in passing the detention order from the last prejudicial activities and therefore the live link is snapped between the prejudicial activities and the rational of passing the detention order. According to him the last prejudicial activities was disclose...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »