Mumbai Court November 2000 Judgments
M/S. Susheel Traders Vs. the Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom166; 2001(3)ALLMR131; 2001(2)BomCR667; (2001)1BOMLR848
ORDERDr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The present Appeal arises out of an order dated 12th July, 1995 of City Civil Court rejecting a Notice of Motion preferred by the Appellant. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant states that subsequent thereto on 3rd July, 2000 the suit was dismissed for default. A Notice of Motion has been filed by the Appellant in the Trial Court for the restoration of the suit. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, the order of dismissal for default is set aside and the suit is hereby restored to the file of the Trial Court.2. The Appellant carries on the business of Stone Crushing at 48, Amboli Hills, Veera Desai Road, Amboli Hill, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400058. It has been averred in the Plaint that in 1983 a licence had been granted to the Appellant for Installing a Stone Crushing unit at the site. Copies of the relevant documents in this regard are annexed at pages 53, 54, 56 and 58 of the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Mafatlal Finance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Pranathi Finance, Leasing and I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)411; 2001(2)BomCR48; (2001)2BOMLR84; (2001)1CompLJ299(Bom)
ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.1. Both the summons for judgments and the chamber summons are taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order. Shri Bookwalla and Shri Naphade advanced main submissions for their respective parties in all the matters.2. I have to perform an act of balancing two prejudices, one the plaintiffs in the above suits and the defendants who are accused before the criminal proceedings pending against them under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiffs have resorted to both the remedies, civil as well as criminal against the defendants, civil proceedings for recovery of the debt due from the defendants and criminal for penalising them for dishonouring of the cheque issued by them in favour of the plaintiffs, purporting to be repayment of the loan advanced to them by the plaintiffs.3. The sketch outline of facts in both the cases is as follows :-The plaintiffs have filed the above suits against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bima Office Premises Co-operative Society and Etc. Vs. Kalamboli Villa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom83; 2001(1)MhLj806
V.C. Daga, J.1. The Demand Notices issued by the respective Gram Panchayats demanding property taxes from the respective petitioners and consequent warrants of attachment issued for recovery thereof have given rise to the present petitions.2. The parties are different, but the issues involved are identical and so a single judgment will dispose of all the petitions.BACK GROUND FACTS 3. The facts, necessary to appreciate rival contentions, taken from writ petition No. 2946/2000, may be stated as under :4. Petitioners are incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956, and is inter alia, engaged in Shipping related activities. The respondent No. 1 herein is a Gram Panchayat of Pagote village, Taluka Uran, District Raigad. The respondent No. 2, the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (hereinafter referred to as the CIDCO, for the sake of brevity), is a subsidiary company of the State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra, a com...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnath Laxman Pathare Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR917
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.2. The revision application arises from the judgment and order dated 28-1-1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1987 and by the impugned order, the Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 6-7-1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First class, Shrirampur in Criminal Case No. 233 of 1984. By the said order, the Magistrate had convicted the petitioner under sections 468, 477A and 418 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 750/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days.3. The charge against the petitioner was that during the period between 13th and 19th September, 1984 while the petitioner was working as Muster clerk in relation to the wor...
Tag this Judgment!Ulhas Vasudeo Falari and ors. Vs. Anandibai Venkatesh Sawant (Smt.) an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR210; 2001(3)BomCR605
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. Admit. Learned Advocates for the respondents waive service on behalf of their respective clients. By consent taken up for final hearing forthwith. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 31-1-2000, passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Mapusa in Special Civil Suit No. 5/92/A, whereby the application of the appellants dated 15-3-1999 for bringing heirs of the deceased plaintiff on record, for condonation of delay and for setting aside abatement, was dismissed. 3. The facts and the relevant dates in the case for appreciating the controversy, are:The original plaintiff, Tarabi Harischandra Sirsat died on 19-12-1996. Thereafter, as per the story of the present appellants, one application was made dated 3-2-97. The same, however, is not in the records of the Court anywhere. Even the Roznama, the certified copy of which is produced by the Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 9 to 12, does not reflect that any such application was ever made. This app...
Tag this Judgment!M.J. Electricals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC699
1. This is an appeal filed by the above appellant against the above captioned Impugned order dated 18.3.99 praying for quashing and setting aside the same, and to hold Rs. 59082.87 was correctly debitted in RG 230 Part II and necessary credit may be given, and it should not be recovered, and for any other order deemed fit.The brief facts are appellant manufacturing PD. Pumps under chapter heading 8410.17,8503.00,8513.00,8501.00 of Tariff Act 1985, under Central Excise License Registration No. 25/EM/71. It has utilised the balance credit of Rs. 59082.87 on 19:2.89, which equally stands lapsed as on 1.4.87 under Notification No. 84/87 dated 31.3.87 in RG 23A Part II (Modvat account) and violated Rule 56A(2) of Central Excise Rules.Superintendent Central Excise Range VIII Division issued show cause notice on 5.4.89 to show cause why it should not be recovered or reversed from the appellant, under Section 11A of Central Excise Act.Appellant replied it on 2.6.89. He did not appear for Pers...
Tag this Judgment!Rajalaxmi Resins (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC703
1. This appeal is filed by the above appellant, against the above-captioned Impugned order dated 29.9.95, praying for quashing, imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000 and appropriation of Bank Guarantee of Rs. 30,000 and for refund of penalty paid and release of Bank guarantee executed.1. The brief facts of the case are, appellant a SSI unit manufactures PF and UF resins falling under chapter heading 39 of Tariff Act 1985, (Urea, Phenol) under the Central Excise License, availing the benefit under SSI Notification No. 1/93 of 1.3.93 and avails Modvat credit.Acting on intelligence, the officers of Preventive unit of Ambernath, intercepted a vehicle with Registration No. MH05-3542 at 7.30 p.m. on 22.2.94 near Octroi Naka, bordering Ulhasnagar and Ambernath (West). On demand by officers, the driver produced Delivery Challan No. 768/93-94 and a bill of even No. dated 22.4.94 in respect of the goods in the vehicle issued by appellant. They disclosed that UF resins of 3080 kgs.in 14 drums were...
Tag this Judgment!M.J. Electricals Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)(95)LC142Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the above appellant against the above captioned Impugned order dated 18.3.1999 praying for quashing and setting aside the same, and to hold Rs. 59082.87 was correctly debited in RG23A Part II and necessary credit may be given, and it should not be recovered, and for any other order deemed fit.1. The brief facts are appellant manufacturing P.D. Pumps under chapter heading 8410.17, 8503.00, 8513.00, 8501.00 of Tariff Act 1985, under Central Excise License Registration No. 25/EM/71. It has utilised the balance credit of Rs. 59082.87 on 19.2.1989, which equally stands lapsed as on 1.4.1987 under Notification No. 84/87 dated 31.3.1987 in RG23A Part II (Modvat account) and violated Rule 56A(2) of Central Excise Rules. Superintendent Central Excise Range VIII Division issued show cause notice on 5.4.1989 to show cause why it should not be recovered or reversed from the appellant, under Section 11A of Central Excise Act. Appellant replied it on 2.6.1989. He did n...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Sajid NooruddIn Shaikh Vs. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1468; 2001BomCR(Cri)368; (2001)1BOMLR755; 2001(4)MhLj161
Khanwilkar, J. 1. The petitioner, who has been detained pursuant to the detention order passed by Shri R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai dated 2.5.2000 under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, has taken exception to his detention in this petition. 2. The facts which are relevant for the adjudication of this petition are as follows: The impugned detention order was passed on 2.5.2000, while the petitioner was already in custody from 14.1.2000 in connection with some criminal cases to which reference has been made In the grounds of detention. The said order was duly approved by the State Government on 9.5.2000 whereas the same was served on the petitioner on 10.5.2000. The grounds of detention along with translation thereof in the language known to the detenu were however served on the petitioner on 13.5.2000. 3. The only contentions which are pressed at the time of arguments by Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nazma MoiddIn Shaikh Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Poli ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)214; 2001BomCR(Cri)448; (2001)2BOMLR304; 2001CriLJ860; 2001(1)MhLj697
A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is the wife of one Mohiddin Abdul Halim Shaikh (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu', has challenged the detention order passed by Shri R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, dated 10.7.1999 in exercise of powers conferred upon him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (M.P.D.A.).2. Although several contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner to assail the Impugned detention order, however, it is wholly unnecessary to deal with each one of them, for we are of the view that the present petition should succeed on the sole ground that there is variance in the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu in Hindi version to that of the original grounds of detention in English version which inevitably impinges upon the detenu's right to make an effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »