Mumbai Court April 2000 Judgments
Nandesari Rasaynee Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT244Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Modification of the Tribunal's order is prayed for on the ground that, subsequent to its order, the company has been accorded the status of sick industrial undertaking by the Board of Industries and Financial Reconstruction. This seems to be the case, as seen from the order of the Board dated 2-12-1999. Accordingly, we modify our earlier order and waive deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed but do not stay recovery leaving it to the department to pursue recovery proceedings as may be advised according to law....
Tag this Judgment!Phool Chand JaIn and Vikram JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC307
1. The following four appeals, arising out of a common order dated 12.6.98 passed by Commissioner of Customs (P), Mumbai, involves the question whether the 37 gold biscuits and Indian Currency worth Rs. 10 lakhs are liable to confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act.Accordingly all the four appeals are being disposed of by one common order: (i) Phool Chand Jain v. Commissioner of Customs (P), Mumbai [Appeal No. C/ 867/98-Bom] (ii) Vikram Jain v. Commissioner of Customs (P), [Appeal No. C/868/98-Bom] (iii) Commissioner of Customs (P) v. Phool Chand Jain, [Appeal No. C/609/99-Mum.] (iv) Commissioner of Customs (P) v. Vikram Jain, [Appeal No. C/608/99-Mum] 2. Briefly stated the facts are that on the basis of information, Customs Officers searched the premises of M/s. K.K. Chains, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai on 19.8.97 and seized 37 foreign marked gold biscuits and Rs. 10 lakhs in Indian Currency under the provisions of Customs Act as Shri Phool Chand Jain, the occupant of the premise; a...
Tag this Judgment!Mardia Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC647
1. When these applications were heard, it appeared that the appeals themselves could be disposed of at this stage itself on a short point of law. Both sides agreeing, this was done by granting/waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 45,91,880 and penalty of Rs. 8,55,000.2. These five appeals arise out of the two different orders captioned above passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), where he dismissed the 5 appeals filed before him for failure to comply with the orders made by him on the stay applications, by the assesses.3. Shri Dinkar, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant's unit is situated in an extremely remote place where even postmen do not go for delivery of the letters. Therefore, they are in the habit of taking their letters from post office. He submits that the appellants did not receive the Commissioner's orders on the stay application and that they did not come to know of the fact of such orders having been passed, until the orders dismissing their a...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Laxman Ramchandra Mai Vs. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Departme ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR642
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Pump Operator from 6-5-1980. His services came to be terminated w.e.f. 13-5-1985. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute under sections 10(1) & 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the Labour Court, Sangli. 2. Both the parties filed their respective pleadings and documents. On the basis of this the Labour Court framed the following issues and answered the same from the material on record : ISSUES1.Whether the Second Party proves that his termination since June85 is illegal & improper ?Yes2.Whether the First Party proves that the termination is legal& proper ?No.3.Whether the Second Party is entitled to reinstatement withcontinuity of services and full back wages as claimed ?Choukidar till the date of his retirement4.What Award?Claim is partly allowedNone of the parties had adduced any oral evidence. The Labour Court has rejected the claim of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sondoli, Through Its Chairman Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom437; 2000(4)BomCR379; 2001(1)MhLj776
ORDERDr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, petition is taken up for hearing.2. The petitioner, which is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, started a secondary school at Sondoli in the District of Kolhapur. Initially classes for Standard VIII were conducted for academic year 1994-95. The secondary school was conducted without any authorisation from the State Government and, it was only on 13-1-1995 that the petitioner applied for sanction and approval by the Government. The pattern of conducting unauthorised classes continued in 1995-96 and in 1996-97 when classes came to be conducted for standards VIII, IX & X without permission from the Government. The students of the school who had pursued their studies for standard X were permitted to appear for the Board examination through another recognised school. On 18-9-1998, another application came to be filed by the school before the State Government for sanction. By ...
Tag this Judgment!Goa Cancer Society Vs. Dr. Vital Kamat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR445; 2000(4)MhLj364
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. Heard. Rule. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties rule made returnable forthwith and heard.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the claim of salary arrears from March 1991 to August, 1999, which are sought to be added by way of amendment, would be barred by limitation except for three years prior to the filing of the said application since, if a fresh suit is filed for recovery of the said arrears, the suit for recovery of salary beyond 3 years would be barred by limitation. In support of his submission he places reliance on Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabrawala and others, : [1964]2SCR567 and on M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, : [1978]2SCR614 .3. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the respondent, after placing reliance on Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others, : [1957]1SCR595 and on Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, : [1984]2SCR333 , has urged that neither any new cas...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. S.S. Shetty and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR476]; (2001)ILLJ47Bom
D.K. Trivedi, J.1. The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal and challenged the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panvel, Raigad dated July 10, 1991 in Summary Case No. 1935 of 1989 acquitting the respondent accused from the offence under Rule 65(3)(i)(a) of the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963. Shri Galeria, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the appellant-State took me through the paper-book consisting of the complaint filed by the Factory Inspector Shri Umare against the respondent accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Panvel dated September 16, 1989 and the evidence of the prosecution witness No. 1 Shri Pundalik Tukaram Umare viz. the complainant and the evidence of P.W. 2 Shri Madhav Krishna Divekar at Exhibit 22 and the documentary evidence viz. report of the complainant in respect of his visit to the factory of the respondent dated June 22, 1989 and the show cause notice issued to the respondent and the reply furnished by ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Containers Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Engineering Workers Union and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ312Bom
J.A. Patil, J. 1. This is a Writ Petition under Articles 226and 227 of the Constitution of India,challenging the order dated February 8, 1990passed by the learned member of the IndustrialCourt, Mumbai, in the Complaint (ULP)No. 47 of 1986, granting certain reliefs toRespondent No. 1 union against the Petitioners.Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, and isengaged in the business of manufacture ofcollapsible tubes. It has its factory at AnikMahul, Chembur, Mumbai 400 074. PetitionerNo. 2 is the Joint Managing Director of]Petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is arecognised Trade Union under the MaharashtraRecognition of Trade Unions and Prevention ofUnfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act,for short). 2. On January 13, 1986, the Respondent No. 1 union filed a complaint against the Petitioners alleging that from December 20, 1985 they had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 1(a) of Schedule II and Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Sakharam Said and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: I(2002)DMC601
J.A. Patil, J.1. The appellants are original accused Nos. I and 2 in Sessions Case No. 299 of 1991. Both of them were tried by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, oh the charge of having committed the offences under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge, by his order dated 27.4.1992 acquitted both the accused of the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted both of them for the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the accused have filed this appeal. 12. The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Tarabai Anita was married to accused No. 1 on 26.6.1989. Accused No. 2 is the sister of accused No. 1, and both of them were residing at village Gavadewadi. A...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Pramod @ Popat @ Poptya Mahadeo Adsul Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca, Com ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR626
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Consultation of India, the petitioner-detenu has impugned the detention order dated 12th April, 1999, passed by the 1st respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan 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)(hereinafter referred to as the M.D.P.A. Act).The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 12th April, 1999, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 14th April, 1999 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures'A' arid'B' respectively, to this writ petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioners-detenu warranting the issuance of the impugned detention order are contained in grounds of detention. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »