Mumbai Court April 2000 Judgments
Shri Gurubasappa Sangramappa Kangale and Another Vs. the Solapur Distr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR402; 2000(4)BomCR389; [2000(86)FLR210]; (2000)IILLJ840Bom; 2001(3)MhLj142
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 16-2-1994 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Solapur, in a complaint filed by the three employees invoking Items 5 of Schedule I of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act), and have prayed for a declaration that the order dated 31-3-1995 granting permission to the respondent No. 2 as Chief Officer being unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 5 of Schedule I of the Act. By the impugned order the Industrial Court has held that there was no evidence brought on record by the complainants to establish that the order passed by the Respondent Bank promoting the respondent No. 2 is mala fide, leads to victimisation or unfair labour practice as contemplated under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Act. After considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Industrial Court was pleased ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Yelgaonkar Dilip Murlidhar Vs. Shri Gudage Mohanrao Pandurang and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR329; 2000(4)BomCR597; (2000)3BOMLR780
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. In this election petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside the election of respondent No. 1 under section 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(ii) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', on the grounds that respondent No. 1 and/or his election agents and/or other persons with consent of respondent No. 1 or his election agent have committed various corrupt practices in the course, of canvassing during the election and at all stages of election in the Khatav Assembly Constituency and outside the constituency. The respondent No. 1, his election agent or other persons or agents with the consent of respondent No. 1 or his election agent have committed corrupt practices as mentioned in section 123(3), (4) and (7) of the Act.2. In the concise statement of facts it is stated that the petitioner has contested the election on Lotus Symbol from Khatav Constituency as a candidate of Bhartiya Janata Party, hereinafter referred...
Tag this Judgment!Air India Ltd. Vs. P.K. Upadhyay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ791Bom
1. Appeal admitted. Notice made returnable forthwith. Mr. Shetty for the 1st respondent waives service. 2nd respondent, being Tribunal, need not be served. By consent, the appeal is called out for hearing.2. After the matter was heard for some time, we made certain suggestions to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both the sides, which they have accepted, after obtaining instructions from their respective clients. The appeal can, therefore, be disposed of at this stage itself, which we propose to do, by consent, in the following terms.(i) The order of the learned single Judge dated February 24, 2000 and the order of the learned Judge, National Industrial Tribunal dated November 20, 1998 made in approval Application No. NTB-51 of 1995, are set aside by consent, in view of the fact that there is already a substantive industrial dispute vide reference No. GGIT 41 of 1999 pending on the subject of reinstatement of the respondent. (ii) The respondent shall be entitled to immediately...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Shailesh Kumar B. Rajpurohit Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3703
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu seeks to challenge the detention order dated 3rd June 1999, passed by the 1st respondent Mr. R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, detaining him 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. IV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).The detention order along with the ground of detention, which are also dated 3rd June 1999, was served on the petitioner detenu on 15th June 1999.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition Mr. U. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu has taken a large number of grounds but since in our view this petition deserves to succeed on ground 80, we are not adverting to the other grounds of challenge raised in the writ petition.Ground 80, in short, is that the petitioner-...
Tag this Judgment!Legend Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(120)ELT56(Bom)
ORDER1. Since both the above Writ Petitions deal with common question of law and fact, they are disposed of by this common order.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Since a short point is involved, both the above Petitions are disposed of finally by this common order.3. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand by invoking the extended time limit of five years under Section 11A(1) read with the proviso. By the said order, personal penalty was also imposed. Being aggrieved by the Order of the Additional Commissioner, Petitioners preferred appeals to the Appellate Authority who dismissed the appeals for non-compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for non-fulfilment of the pre-deposit of 50% of the disputed amounts of duty and penalty as ordered vide Order dated 25-1-1999. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners preferred revision to the Central Government which has also been dismissed vide impugned order (Exhibit-Q to the Writ Petition No. 831 of 2000).4...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Hasmukhlal H. Doshi and Another Vs. Mr. Justice M.L. Pendse and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR350; 2000(3)BomCR672; (2000)2BOMLR684; 2000(3)MhLj690
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit.2. Respondents waive service. By consent, heard forthwith. All the petitions involve similar facts and common question of law and therefore are being decided by a common judgment.3. The petitioners by Arbitration Petition (Lodg.) No. 102 of 2000 in Arbitration Suit No. 1930 of 1987 has prayed that the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator appointed by this Court by an Order dated 2nd August, 1996 stands terminated. Similar, relief is prayed for in Arbitration Petition (Lodg.) No. 104 of 2000 in respect of Arbitration Suit No. 1928 of 1987 where appointment was made by order of this Court dated 2nd August, 1996. The same relief has also been prayed for in Arbitration Petition (Lodg.) No. 105 of 2000 in Arbitration Suit No. 1926 of 1987 wherein appointment was done by an order dated 2nd August, 1996.The petitioners have invoked section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It is contended that from the facts on reco...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Mathur Vs. the Chief General Manager, Mtnl, Mumbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR89; (2000)3BOMLR344; 2000(3)MhLj841
ORDERVijay Daga, J.1. The petition is directed against an award dated 3-11-1999 delivered by the Arbitrator Shri Sunil K. Garg, Deputy General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Mumbai, who had been appointed as sole Arbitrator as per order of this Court dated 12-2-1999 in Arbitration Petition No. 430 of 1998 to decide the dispute between the parties, arising out of the an agreement dated 24-10-1995.2. The question sought to be canvassed before me is that the impugned award passed by the learned Arbitrator, referred to hereinabove is not legal and valid as the Arbitrator has recorded findings and failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances brought on record of the arbitration proceeding. In the submissions of the petitioner, the impugned award is therefore, liable to be set aside in exercise of the powers under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short).3. In the light of the above submissions, the question which a...
Tag this Judgment!Jet Airways (i) Ltd. Vs. Mr. Jan Peter Ravi Karnik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR437; 2000(4)BomCR487
ORDERS. S. Nijjar, J.1. This order will dispose of Notices of Motion 632 of 2000 in Suit No. 711 of 2000, 633 of 2000 in Suit No. 712 of 2000, 634 of 2000 in Suit No. 713 of 2000 and 676 of 2000 in Suit No. 766 of 2000. Since the facts are substantially the same in all the four suits, for facility of reference, the facts are being reported from Suit No. 711 of 2000.2. The plaintiff seeks an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking; up or continuing any employment until 11th October, 2005. with any other Airline, including Sahara Airlines for the purpose of operating aircraft on the basis of the endorsement of the licence obtained as a result of the training provided by the plaintiff, that is to say, for operating B 737 Series 300/400/500. The plaintiff also seeks an order directing the defendant to return forthwith to the plaintiff the documents and articles set out in Exhibit-1. The plaintiff also seeks a money, decree against the defendants in the sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Nijrang Poly Pack Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT562Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 27.17 lacs approx, and penalty of Rs. 2.00 lacs on the assessee and Rs. 1.00 lac on D.R. Patel, its director.3. Duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the cost of manufacturing out of low density poly-ethelene by the applicant, as a job worker, has been undeclared.Whatever be the position of the case on merits, (and prima facie there does not appear to be a strong case on merits) the applicant has a strong prima facie case on limitation. The price lists in which the value of the goods has been declared has been approved, as has been the RT-12 returns for the clearances. The notice is issued after 4 1/2 years invoking the extended period contained in the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act. The reason for invoking the extended period is that the assessee did not declare in the price list the reason for reduction in the price of these goods as compared with the price of goods whi...
Tag this Judgment!Philips Carbon Black Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT130Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant purchased carbon black feed stock input in its manufacturing process from M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter IPCL), the manufacturer and took the -edit of duty paid on it. Subsequently the IPCL paid duty stated to have been short levied on some account. Credit of this amount claimed by the appellant under Rule 57E. Credit has been refused in the order impugned in the appeal on the ground that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 57A does not permit credit to be taken of any enhanced duty paid on the inputs if the duty paid later was initially short paid or not paid as a result of any of the factors contained in the proviso under Section 11A(1) of the Act.2. The advocate for the appellant points out that it is clear from the order of the Assistant Commissioner confirming the demand for duty, that the amount was paid voluntarily by IPCL. Therefore, Sub-rule (3) of Rule 57E will not apply.3. While the departmental representative attempts to uphold the order of Comm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »