Mumbai Court February 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.
Miraj Taluka Girani Kamgar Sangh Vs. MaraThe Textile Mills
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR644]; (2000)ILLJ1602Bom
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated September 7, 1999 dismissing the writ petition 4712 of 1999 filed by the appellants in limine.2. The respondent is a textile mill governed by the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, (Act for short). The appellant is a registered trade union and it is also a recognised and approved union under the provisions of the said Act On April 1, 1994 the union had entered into a settlement with the management in respect to the Ring frame Department providing for four side and six side work by the employees. There is no dispute that the said settlement is still in force and not terminated by either sides. It seems that the management gave notice of change on June 1, 1999 seeking change in the working in Ring frame Department in respect of which the settlement referred to above had made certain provisions. The change notice was opposed by the union and on June 15, 1999 the Assistant Commissioner...
Foods and Inns Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC798
1. The appellant manufactures powder of various fruits such as mango, banana, tomato and supplies them to its customers. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether these products were supplied in unit containers or not. The question is of significance because if they were supplied in unit containers the product would be classifiable under Heading 2001.10 of the tariff, if not at nil rate of duty applicable to residuary entry 2001.90 under which they fall. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Collector (Appeals) held that the goods had been supplied in unit container and confirmed the demand for duty issued to the appellant.2. Heading 2001.10 is for preparation of vegetables, foods etc.specified in the main Heading 2001 put up in unit containers and ordinarily intended for sale." There is no dispute that the goods in this case are ordinarily sold. What is to be decided is whether the goods were put up in unit containers. The term "unit container" is defined in Sectio...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Universal Luggage Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT161Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Respondent to this appeal by the Commissioner is M/s. Universal Luggage Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (ULM for short). These proceedings have arisen out of the notice issued to ULM by the department. The notice alleges that with effect from June, 1987 onwards the multi luggage manufactured by ULM substantially cleared through their wholesale subsidiary, named Aristocrat Marketing Ltd (AML for short). The notice says that ULM was a sham company only existing on paper and says that it is a separate juristic entity. Different stands are taken at different places in the notice. It alleges that the subsidiary was formed in order to evade duty; ULM after the AML was formed reduced the assessable value of the luggage sold to AML which thereafter sold it to dealers at substantially higher prices. There was a supporting allegation made in the notice that advertising expenses were hived off to AML from ULM; staff in both companies were same; trading pattern of ULM so as to increase the sale from AM...
Messers Khatri and Khatri Vs. City and Industrial Development Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom315; 2000(3)ALLMR80; 2000(3)BomCR408
ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 23-2-1995 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the petition of the appellant under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was dismissed and decree was passed in terms of the award of the sole arbitrator dated 11th June 1992 by which the appellants were directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 9,02,177/-.2. The appellant is a successful tenderer whose tenderer came to be accepted on 26-4-1982 but failed to complete construction work even within the extended time which ultimately resulted in the request for further extension of time at the instance of the appellant. The respondent declined to grant further extension and the contract came to be terminated on 19th September 1984 and respondent got the work completed through some other agency. The dispute between the appellants and the respondents was referred to the Secretary of the P.W.D. of the State of Maharashtra for arbitration as a sole arbitrator. The claims...
The Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR536; 2000(3)BomCR461; (2000)IILLJ815Bom; 2001(2)MhLj775
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. Both these petitions arise out of the impugned action of the Board constituted under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act'). 2. The Act contemplates constitution of a Board to manage the scheme which, in turn, was sanctioned by the State Government after, entering into a consultative exercise with Advisory Committee, as per section 14 of the said Act, as per also the Representation of the Employee/Employees and other persons connected with the field. About this aspect, there being no dispute, we are not entering into further details. 3. The petitioners herein are having a factory, dealing with essentially in the product of man-made fibres which is used in the production of man-made yarn, later on made into clothes. The factory itself is confined to what is known as manufacturing of fibres. 4. Fibre is sought to be covered under the provisions of the said ...
Kishan Arjuna Khansole Vs. Ababuwa Baba Khansole
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR433; 2000(4)MhLj854
ORDERA.S. Bagga, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19th August, 1983 of the Extra Assistant Judge, Nanded in Regular Civil Appeal No. 116 of 1981 whereby the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 1981 of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded came to be set aside.2. The dispute is between the uncle and the nephew and it pertains to one acre of land originally from Survey No. 89 situated at Village Kamlaj, Taluka and District, Nanded. Survey No. 89 admeasures 7 acres and 12 gunthas, which was partitioned. Half of this land admeasuring 3.26 acres came to the share of the respondent and was given survey and was numbered as Survey No. 89/A and the other equal half land admeasuring 3.26 acres came to be allotted in the share of the appellant and was numbered as Survey No. 89/B.3. The appellant - Kishan (uncle) sold 2.26 acres land out of his holdings to his nephew respondent Ababuwa by registered sale deed in the year, 1970. After having sold the land...
Kisan Bhikaji Dalvi, Since Deceased, Through L.Rs. Vs. Krishnabai Maru ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR508; 2000(4)BomCR409; (2000)3BOMLR152; 2000(4)MhLj485
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. The present respondent-Krishnabai had-filed Regular Civil Suit No. 37 of 1964 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola, District Ahmednagar, for partition and separate possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. However, Krishnabai filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 237 of 1966 in the District Court, Ahmednagar, and the said appeal was allowed on 10-1-1968; and it was held that Krishnabai was having half share in the suit lands. 2. Krishnabai thereafter filed Regular Darkhast No. 9 of 1968. The case papers were then transmitted to the Collector, Ahmednagar, for effecting the partition of the agricultural lands, assessable to land revenue. The petitioner then raised objection that the decree was preliminary decree and it was notexecutable; and the case papers be called back from the Collector. Unless and until there is final decree, drawn as per the declaration made in the judgment of the Appellate Court, the decree cannot be put to execution....
Gulf Air Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC785
1. The Hon'ble President has referred this matter to me to hear the difference of opinion of the two members as per the communication dated 11.2.1999 from the CEGAT, New Delhi, and to give findings on the following questions arising out of the Branch Order No. 1038 dated 15.5.98 in this appeal: 1. Whether, in the light of the findings of the Commissioner that the airline, its Director and the Captain of the aircraft were not aware of the presence of the gold on the aircraft penalty could be imposed under Clause (a) or (b) of Section 112 on the airline. 2. Whether, in the absence of notice issued to Combata Aviation Services or its employees and in the absence of penalty on either of these, penalty could be imposed on the airline under Clause (a) or (b) of Section 112 on the airline. 3. Whether, if the answer to the above question is in the negative penalty was imposable under Section 112 on the airline. 4. Whether, in the light of the Commissioner's finding about the lack of involveme...
Sk. Rashid S/O Abdul Gani Vs. the Zilla Parishad, Beed and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR496; 2000(4)BomCR518; 2000(3)MhLj789
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. The petitioner had applied for the post of Junior Sanitary Inspector in Zilla Parishad, Beed. After .his interview, he was selected forthe said post as per the order dated 5th March 1984, Nine other candidateswere, also, selected along with him and all of them were appointed on temporary basis. The petitioner was first posted at Primary Health Centre, Tadsonain Beed Taluka, and he served there for one and half years. From there, hewas transferred to Nalwandi. On 1-11-1985, respondent No. 1 Zilla Parishad,Beed appointed 18 candidates as temporary^ Junior Sanitary Inspectors. Respondents Nos. 3 to 20 are the said Junior Sanitary Inspectors, appointedafter the appointment of the petitioner.2. The petitioner has contended that though he was appointed on temporary basis, he was appointed on substantive post. His work was satisfactory. No adverse remarks were communicated to him. However, by order dated 26th August 1986, the services of the petitioner were terminated by...
Ramachandra S. Amonkar Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ366Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These two cases raise common and inter-connected issues and, therefore, by consent of the parties, they are disposed of by a common judgment. In fact, the writ petition appears to be a continuation of the cause of action from where the appeal stops. 2. The material facts which are necessary for deciding both the appeal and the writ petition are as under: 3. The appellant joined the respondent No. 1 - Bank as an officer some times in the year 1962, even prior to the nationalisation of banks, which came about sometime in the year 1970. Some time in October 1988 the appellant was posted as Chief Manager, Singapore branch of the Respondent Bank. He came back to India on March 7, 1992 on the ground that his son was suffering from muscular dystrophy. On July 3. 1992 the appellant gave a notice of voluntary retirement. By a reply dated September 16, 1992 the General Manager of the Respondent No. 1-Bank declined to accept the request for voluntary retirement. By his lette...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »