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.
Kisanrai V. Gaonkar Vs. Rajendra N. Dharwadkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR580; 2000(3)BomCR21; 2000(4)MhLj59
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This petition arises from the judgment dated 19th April, 1991 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Eviction Appeal No. 29/90. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5-4-90 of the Additional Rent Controller of Panaji in Rent Case No. A.R.C./2/84. By the said order dated 5-4-90, the Additional Rent Controller had directed the petitioner to vacate the suit premises and hand over the vacant possession thereof to the respondent No. 1 landlord within three months from the date of the order. The said order was passed in the proceedings under section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of Flat No. 6 on the third floor of Karim Building situated at St. Inez, Panaji and that the respondent No. 1 is the landl...
Shri Ramesh Laxman Pangam Vs. Shri Manuel Domingo Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR596; 2000(3)BomCR26
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This petition arises from the judgment and order dated 15th March, 1995 passed in Eviction Appeal No. 29/91 by the Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned order, the tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 2nd July, 1990 by the Additional Rent Controller, Mapusa in Case No. RENT/17/85. By the said order, the Additional Rent Controller had allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the said Act) and the proceedings in the said Rent case were ordered to be stopped and the petitioner was directed to put the respondent No. 1 in possession of the suit premises within one month from the date of service of the order.2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the respondent No. 1 herein filed eviction proceedings against the petitioner by an application dated 12-3-...
Baban Ananda Dhotre Vs. Pefco Foundary
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR471; (2000)IILLJ1486Bom; 2001(3)MhLj547
ORDERA.P. Shah, J. 1. Heard Advocates.2. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Office to number the appeal.3. Appeal is admitted. Respondents waive service. By consent, appeal is taken up for final hearing.4. The appellant workman was employed as a driver by the respondent company from 3rd February, 1979 and was confirmed on 4th July 1979. He was assigned the work of driving the car of the company's Executive Director Shri J.P. Gupta. He was also directed to render his services towards the family members of Shri Gupta. By dismissal order dated 30th September 1984, the respondent company dismissed the workman from the employment after holding a domestic enquiry for alleged acts of misconduct levelled vide its chargesheets dated 12th September 1983 and 14th January, 1984. The workman raised an industrial dispute which came to be referred to theLabour Court under section 10(1) read with section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Labour Court, the workman filed his state...
Maharashtra Shramik Sena Vs. Extrusion Process Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR564]; (2001)IIILLJ749Bom
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Petitioners had approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated November 26, 1993 whereby the complaint filed by the Petitioners against the Respondents alleging unfair labour practices has been dismissed. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that their complaint has been dismissed on the ground that the Petitioners have not led any evidence in the case. It is contended that on October 30, 1991 the Petitioners had applied to record evidence as not recording evidence may go against the complainants. It is principally alleged that for the purpose of effecting transfer respondent No. 1 has relied on various settlements. These settlements it is contended were not with any union but with the workers and as such would not be binding on the petitioners or the persons on whose behalf the complaint is filed. By refusing to grant their request for oral evidence, it is contended that the order dated October 30, 1991 is liable to the quashed and set aside.2. ...
Vazir Glass Works Vs. Bharat R. Tayade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ687Bom
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Petitioner by the present Petition impugns the orders dated August 10, 1998 and November 25, 1999 passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court respectively.2. The Respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint against the Petitioner herein alleging unfair labour practices on the part of the Petitioner under Items 1(a)(b)(d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. It was the case of the Respondent No. 1 that the Petitioners were intending to close down their factory and to that effect had put up a notice. It was their contention that the same amounted to the act of unfair labour practices and consequently the Petitioner should be desisted from committing the act of unfair labour practices. An application for interim relief was also prayed for. During the course of the proceedings, the Respondent No. 1 applied for an amendment of the complaint whereby they sought to contend that there...
Tarachand S/O Udhaorao Bhagat and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2667
J.N. Patel, J.1. In Sessions Trial No. 32 of 1991, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, by his Judgment and Order dated 6th of August, 1994, convicted the appellants for having committed an offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Court also ordered set-off under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to the respective accused. The appellants appealed against their conviction.2. The facts were these : The incident occurred on 25-6-1990 between 7.00 to 8.00 p.m. at village Pimpalgaon, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Girad, Sub-Division Hinganghat, District Wardha. At the relevant time and place, deceased Viktu, son of the complainant - Namdeorao Dattu Kavade, was sitting in the house of his maternal uncle - Bhimrao s/o Natthuji Telange (P.W. 1). At that time, Wasudeo s...
Mohamed Shakil Mohamed Shafi Jariwala and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3606
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. Rule, By consent Rule made returnable forth with.2. Heard both sides.3. The Petitioner seeks to revise the order dated 21-1-2000 passed by the Special Judge, Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime, Greater Bombay which reads as under :Oral application to have an access to the Remand application of the Ld. advocate for the accused stands rejected. Accused by separate order are remanded to judicial custody till upto and inclusive of 1-2-2000. 4. This order came to be passed by the Court below on a request made by the persons including petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 to have access to the remand application made by the Public Prosecutor. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are implicated in D.C.P. CR. No. 103ofl999 (Pydhonie Police Station C. R. No. 290 of 1999) for the offences punishable under Section 302, 120(b) read with 34 of I.P.C. and also Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. It is to be noted that 4th Petitioner is not implicated in that C.R. The case of the Petit...
India United Mills No. 1 Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)(93)LC197Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for stay of collection of duty amounting to Rs. 40,99,569/-, penalty of Rs. 43,71,742/- and redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The appellant is a public undertaking engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn grey falling under chapter 52 and 55. During the period from September, 1995 to July 1997 the Central Excise authorities found that the assessees have not paid certain duties in respect of blended double yarn on the ground that the provisions of the exemption notification 35/95 as amended by notification 84/95 clearly stipulates that the mill has to pay duty. The contention of the assessees was that as long as the final product is cleared from the factory only the exemption notification 35/95 was not applicable. Where the final product is captively consumed, the exemption notification 35/95 was applicable. It was also contended by the assessees before the adjudicating authority that when the unit itself was incurring losses in a number of years previously,...
Dawn Miles Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT541Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals have been placed before me today and it is better after I narrate the facts relating to appeals No. E/605/94 & E/606/94.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under TI. 18A/CH 52 and 55 of Central Excise Tariff. The Annual Stock Taking was conducted on 1-7-1982 on 1-7-1986 and 1-4-1992 revealed mixed trend of excess and shortages, in respect of various counts of cotton as well as man made yarn. The Range Superintendent issued three show cause notices dated 16-1-1984, 3-12-1986 and 21-5-1992 calling upon the assessee pay the amount of Rs. 26,472.21, Rs. 40,699.14 and Rs. 14,243.28 respectively. These show cause notices adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner by this Orders dated 29-7-1992 and 7-8-1992 condoning shortages upto 2%. Against the same appeals were filed before the Collector (Appeals) who by the impugned orders dated 4-8-1993 dismissed the same. Against those two orders this appeals were filed before the Tribunal ...
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)(93)LC330Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, it appeared that on a preliminary point the main appeal itself could be disposed of. This was done after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 1,73,03,304/- and penalty amounting to Rs. 1,75,00,000/-. Shri J.M.Patel referred to the appellants reply dated 25.6.1999 to the show cause notice dated 31.5.1999. In this reply the point put forth by the appellants was that the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not survive in view of the various arguments made in the said letter. The letter concluded with the plea request: We hereby apply to entertain and try the said issue as preliminary issue. We reserve right to put in supplementary reply in case you do not entertain aforesaid prayer.3.The office of the Commissioner directed the present appellants who appeared for personal hearing vide letter dated 7.7.1999 in which reference was made to this letter. The hearing was conc...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »