Mumbai Court March 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.
P. Cawasji and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT606Tri(Mum.)bai
The applicants are a Customs House Agent, a proprietary firm for a very long time. The CHA licence had validity up to 31-12-1999. On 23-8-1999 a notice was served on the applicants to the effect that an enquiry was instituted against them under regulation 23 of the Customs House Licensing Regulations, 1984 being a part of the procedure for suspending or revoking the CHA licence. The CHA filed a reply on 22-11-1999. They also filed an application dated 28-9-1999 for renewal of this CHA licence. The Commissioner of Customs passed order, dated 7-2-2000. The concluding paragraph of his order reads as follows: "Therefore, I, V.P. Singh Commissioner of Customs (G), Mumbai, do hereby in exercise of powers conferred to me under Regulation 12[2](b) of Customs House Licensing Regulation, 1984, withhold the renewal of Customs House Agent's Licence held by M/s. P. Cawasji & Co. CHA No.11/319, with immediate effect pending final report of the Inquiry Officer." Against this order the CHA filed ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Abdul Majid Abdul Raheman Sayyed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1200; (2001)2BOMLR90; 2001(4)MhLj299
ORDERCriminal Appeal No. 51 of 1986 is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. The impugned judgment and order dated 2.9.1985, passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 270 of 1984 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondent Abdul Majid Abdul Raheman Sayyed is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 307 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. ...
ila VipIn Pandya Vs. Smita Ambalal Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR428
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This order will dispose of Notice of Motion No. 643 of 1997 and Notice of Motion No. 262 of 1998.2. Notice of Motion No. 643 of 1997 has been taken out by the caveatrix for a number of reliefs. Prayer Clauses (b) and (c) are for appointment of Receiver. Prayer Clauses (d) is for an injunction. Prayer Clause (a) seeks a direction to the plaintiff petitioner to disclose on oath all the properties and assets in Bombay, Ankleshwar, Ahmedabad and elsewhere of the deceased Mr. Vipin Dalsukhram Pandya. A further direction is sought to amend the schedule to the petition for Letters of Administration.3. At the outset it needs to be stated that this Notice of Motion has been argued on four different dates as testamentary matters are taken only on Thursday. It also needs to be stated that the Notice of Motion has been argued as if the testamentary suit itself is to be finally disposed of. This, I think, is not the correct approach when the Court has merely to decide an inte...
N.R.C. Employees Union Vs. N.R.C. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR482]; (2000)IIILLJ777Bom
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner Union by the present petition has challenged the Judgment and Order dated February 27, 1997 passed in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 321 of 1995, 989 of 1995 and 402 of 1996. All the three Complaints were filed by the petitioner Union on the ground that the Respondents were guilty of unfair labour practices under Item 5 of Schedule II and Items 3, 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The grievance of the complainant was that the Respondent company had transferred the employees from the head office to the factory, without consultation with the Union as required by the settlement and/or by failing to negotiate with the petitioner Union. Consequently Item 5 of Schedule II was breached. Similarly, the transfer would occasion financial loss and as such attracts Items 3 and 9 of Schedule IV. Though there is a provision for accommodation, the transferred employees are not being given accommodation inviting breach of Item 5 Schedule III. This point has b...
Mukund Laxmikant Bhalerao Vs. Zilla Parishad, Jalna and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR440; (2001)4BOMLR222; 2001(3)MhLj843
V. K. Barde. J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in Panchayat Samiti, Bhokardan under Zilia Parishad after due selection by the Selection Board. He resumed duty on 12-2-1973. The petitioner thereafter was promoted on the post of Senior Assistant as per order dated 21.9.1984 and he resumed on his promotional post on 29-9-1984 in the Irrigation Department of the Zilla Parishad, Jalna - respondent No. 1. He worked on that post till 29-12-1985 and during that period, his work was satisfactory but. he was suffering from tuberculosis so, from 30-12-1985, he was under the treatment for tuberculosis and was on leave. He went to take treatment from Government Medical Officer (Tuberculosis) at Jalna and Aurangabad T. B. Hospital. The petitioner was examined by the Medical Board on 25.6.1987 but, he did not receive the report of the Medical Board till the date of filing of the petition. However, he received the order of joining duty on 8.7.1987. However, because of the monsoon ...
Smt. Shantidevi Ramvtar Chavan Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR592; 2000BomCR(Cri)592
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who styles herself as the wife of the detenu Ramavtar Ramachal Chauhan, has impugned the detention order dated 19th August, 1999 passed by the 1st respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, 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).True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention which are also dated 19th August 1999 are annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively, to this writ petition and were served on the detenu on 24th August 1999.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, Although in this writ petition, Mr. U.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has pleaded a large number of grounds but since in our view, this writ petition ...
Abg Heavy Industries Ltd. (Formerly Known as Onaway Engineering P. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: [2001]105CompCas413(Bom)
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. This application has been filed for setting aside an order of admission dated April 16, 1999. The reasons given for absence of the company on the date when the matter came up for hearing are contained in paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support. It is stated that on March15, 1999, a copy of the petition was received by the company. Initial reply was sent to the advocate for the petitioner on March 15, 1999. Thereafter the papers were misplaced. These papers were subsequently noticed on May 5, 1999- On enquiry it has been found that the order of admission has been passed on April 16, 1999.2. Mr. Kadam submitted that in view of the above, the order of admission ought to be set aside. As opposed to this in the affidavit in reply, it is stated that the application which has been filed by the company is nothing more than a delaying tactic. It is submitted by Mr. Rebello that the petition was presented to this court on November 20, 1998. It was accepted on February 18, 1999,...
Madura Coats Employees Union Vs. G.S. Baj, Member, Industrial Tribunal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR97; [2000(86)FLR223]; (2000)IILLJ758Bom
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioner Union by the present petition, has impugned the Award dated June 10, 1996. By the said Award the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, decided the reference as referred to it at the instance of the petitioner Union as alsothe Respondent Company. The RespondentCompany had filed Writ Petition No. 1338 of1997. That petition has been decided today, bya separate order.2. In passing the award the Industrial Tribunal was pleased to award in favour of the workmen some demands.3. The Tribunal has allowed privilege leave which reads as under:-'The company shall grant 30 working days privilege leave per annum to all the workmen with a right to accumulate the same upto 90 days. If the employee avails 10 days privilege leave in a calendar year he/she shall be eligible for encashment of accumulated PL upto 30 days. The employee shall be eligible to avail PL proportionately during the calendar years.The Tribunal then observed as under:-'On the contrary the workmen will be finally...
Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. G.S. Baj, Member, Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ830Bom
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner/employer has preferred this petition against the Award dated June 10, 1996 to the extent that the Industrial Tribunal has rejected the reference as made and as raised on behalf of the Company. By a reference the appropriate Government had referred disputes raised by both the union as well as the employer, that is the petitioner herein. The petitioner had sought to categorise the workmen under five grades against the existing categories. The petitioner had also sought to impose a bar on the annual increment based on efficiency. The petitioner has further sought replacement of the existing Dearness Allowance by following the CPI (Simla Series) base 1960. Next, the petitioners sought classification of the employees into grades, fitment, hours of working, the right to take disciplinary action for habitual late attendance, maternity leave and gratuity.2. In support of their demand for re-classification and D.A. pattern, the petitioner's examined as their wi...
Scan Organics Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR905
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent heard both sides.1. This writ petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in Case Nos. 739/S/98, 740/S/98 and 741/S/98 on the file of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Bombay. The aforesaid cases were filed on account of dishonouring of three cheques issued by the petitioner Company in favour of the respondents for Rs. 1,0,1,155/- each. The cheques were drawn on 29th June, 29th July, and 29th August, 1997 respectively, on the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ghatkopar (W) Branch, Bombay. Even after the statutory notice as envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the respondent did not pay the amount covered by the cheques. Therefore the complaint was filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by the respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner in this writ petition inter alia has contended that the first petitioner Company has been registered before the Board for Industrial Financi...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »