Mumbai Court January 2000 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.
Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga Vs. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: II(2001)DMC230
J.A. Patil, J.1. This Appeal by the original respondent is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.10.1995 passed in M.J. Petition No. A-756 of 1990 by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Mumbai. The learned Judge allowed the petition filed by the present respondent under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation and other reliefs, The learned Judge, however, dismissed the appellant's counter-claim for a declaration of nullity of marriage. Feeling aggrieved thereby the original respondent-husband has filed this appeal. The original petitioner-wife has also filed cross-objections. The relevant facts necessary for deciding this appeal and the cross-objections are, in brief, as under.2. The parties belong to Maheshwari community and both of them were married on 11.7.1981 at Mumbai as per the Hindu Vedic rites. At the time of marriage the respondent was a divorcee since she had previously married with one Shri Girdharilal Lakhotia in 1973 but there was subs...
Smt. Ramlaben Ramesh Patel Vs. Shri L.R. Garg and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR274
N.J. Pandya, J.1. The wife of the Detenu, who has filed the present petition, is seeking release of the Detenu who has been detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985, as applicable to the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The Detention Order is dated 1st May, 1999 and he came to be detained on that very day. Usual process of confirmation, opinion of Advisory Board and further confirmation have been gone through between 4th May, 1999 and 5fh June, 1999 and, on this score, therefore, there is no grievance.2. The grievance is confined to the fact that the impugned detention order Exhibit A, Page - 19 read along with the Grounds of Detention Order, Exhibit - B, Page 20 onwards, is vitiated because the subjective satisfaction is based on non - existent material.3. It is an admitted position that the Detention Order is passed on the basis of the definition of Bootleggers as defined under Section 2(a) of the said Act. The relevant portion ...
Harising and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ852
S.D. Gundewar, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-5-1994 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Sessions Case No. 40/98.The appellants, namely, Harising s/o Mansaram Chavan, Murlidar s/o Pandurang Mankar, Fulsingh s/o Narsingh Chavan, Virsingh s/o Mansaram Chavan and Ananta s/o Pandurang Mankar (original accused Nos. 1 to 4 & 8) along with 16 others (since one i.e. Sarangdhar s/o Pandurang Mankar died during the pendency of trial) were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 302 read with Section 34, 325 read with Section 149, 325 read with Section 34 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants (original accused Nos. 1 to 4 & 8) in the manner stated hereinafter :-(i) under Section 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. to imprisonment for life a...
Harish Ramratan Gaud Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR279a
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the Judgment and order dated 4.11.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 285, of 1995, convicting and sentencing him in the manner stated hereinafter:-(i) Under Section 302 of the I.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 30/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months;(ii) Under Section 324 of the I.P.C. to suffer one months imprisonment ; and(iii) Under Section 449 of the I.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month.The substantive sentences of the appellant were ordered to run concurrently.2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under:-The informant Jaipal Walmiki P.W. 2 at the time of the incident was working as a sweeper in the Institute of Armament Technology (also referred to as IAT) at Pune. His quarter was situated in the IAT campus. At the time of the incident, he was residing in it alo...
Reliance Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)LC219Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in these appeals is the eligibility to be considered as inputs under Rule 57A of various items.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held such oil not to be inputs on the ground that it is only applied on the machines and therefore cannot be considered as used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. This logic is incorrect. If the final product cannot be manufactured except by the use of machinery, and the lubricating oil is essential to keep the machinery in working order, it would follow that the oil is used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. A series of decisions of this Tribunal cited by the Advocate for the appellant, its latest being CCE, Calcutta v. Black Diamond Beverages Ltd., 1999 (32) RLT 375, have held that lubricating oil has to be considered as an eligible input on the reasoning we have followed.4. It was explained by the Advocate for the appellant that this oil circulated in the reactor where the ...
Standard Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT180Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai dismissing the appeal of the appellant without giving an opportunity of the hearing to the appellant. The appellants are manufacturing various textile items covered under Chapters 52 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.The show cause notice was issued some time on 4-8-1997 calling upon the assessee to pay a sum of Rs. 8,208/- for violation of Rule 49A and Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Commissioner by the order-in-original, dated 2-1-1998 confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- along with the duty amount. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by the impugned order dismissed the same without giving opportunity to the appellant for hearing. Hence the present appeal. During the course of the appeal he has paid Rs. 4,000/- towards duty and Rs. 2,000/- towards penalty and waive the pre-deposit and remanded th...
Vinayak V. More Etc. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR511
Y. K. Sabharwal, C.J. 1. Writ Petition No. 3879 of 1999: This Petition and connected Petitions challenge the Notifications dated 29th September, 1999 issued by the Government levying toll on vehicles passing through the section of the concerned highway and Which has been constructed, reconstructed, improved or repaired and also the flyover bridges constructed on such road and approach roads therein at the rates specified against each class of vehicles for a period of 28 years with effect from such date as the State Government separately notifies, at the collection centre, as specified in the Notification. It would suffice to only notice the facts in respect of Writ Petition No. 3879 of 1999, which concerns Eastern Express Highway (Vasantrao Naik Marg) in Mumbai and Thane Districts. The impugned Notification has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sections (1-A), (1-B), (1-C), (1-D) and (1-E) of Section 20 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 ('the Act', for sho...
Vinayak M. Deshpande and Texpoline (Poona) P. Ltd. Vs. Official Liquid ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: [2001]105CompCas279(Bom)
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. This order will dispose of Company Application No. 280 of 1999 and Company Application No. 543 of 1999.2. It is the case of the applicant that the premises which have been sealed by the liquidator viz., House No. 2015/2, Sayantara, Sadashiv Peth, Tilak Road, Near Grahak Peth, Pune-400 030, belong to the applicant. These premises were let out to Ecoline Development Engineers Ltd. (in liquidation). This company was ordered to be wound up on December 2, 1998. These premises had been shown by the company in liquidation as their registered office. Consequently, the premises have been sealed by the official liquidator. The premises were let out to the company in liquidation in the year 1980. However, in the year 1986, the registered office of the company was shifted to some other premises. The company has failed to pay the rental charges from December, 1992. Consequently, a notice was issued on March 1, 1997, to the company asking for vacant possession of the premises and f...
Sahney Kirkwood Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. S.V. Bhagwat and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR477; [2000(87)FLR482]; (2000)IIILLJ85Bom
S.S. Parkar, J.1. This petition is filed for quashing Case No. 3456 of 1987 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. First Class, Thane filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 25(N) and (Q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the allegation that without the requisite prior permission of the appropriate Government the petitioners have retrenched the workmen.2. Few facts material for the disposal of this petition are that on September 15, 1984 the petitioners retrenched 50 workers with immediate effect. The same was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thane by the Union. A show cause notice was issued to the management by letter dated February 7, 1986 and thereafter the present complaint came to the filed in the Magistrate's Court on September 23, 1987. A copy of the complaint is annexed as Exhibit 'A' to this petition which is dated September 23, 1987. On the said complaint process was issued by the Magistrate against the management and, therefore, the present petiti...
Smt. Phulwari Jagdambaprasad Pathak Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commission ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR439
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this Petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who styles herself as the mother of the detune Shyamsunder @ Navin @ Amar @ Mahesh Jagdambaprasad Pathak, has impugned the detention order dated 19.6.1999 passed by the First Respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonea, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Murnbai, detaining the detenu under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981)(Amendment 1996). (The said Act hereinafter is also referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act).The detention order along with the grounds of detention, also dated 19.6.1999, was served on the detenu on 20.6.1999. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and C respectively to the Petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu warranting the issuance of the impugned detention order are contain...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »