Mumbai Court May 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.
Yeshwant Hiraji Chikalkar Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Poli ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR63
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who styles himself as the father of the detenu Mahendra Yeshwant Chikhalkar, has impugned the detention order dated 6th November, 1999, passed by the 1st respondent - Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, obtaining 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. IV of 1981)(Amendment - 1996).The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 6th November, 1999, was served on the detenu on 16th November, 1999 and their true copies are annexed as Exhibits 'A' and 'B' respectively, to this writ petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one C.R., namely C.R. No. 234/99 under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 384, 387, 120-B of the ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kolsite Maschine Fabrik Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT105Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When this stay application was argued by Shri B.K. Choubey for the Revenue, it appeared that the issue already having been covered by the Tribunal in the case of the same assessees, the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal.2. The asessees manufactured plastic extrusion machines. Their performance was tested by polypropylene and HDPE granules. Credit of the duty paid on these inputs was claimed. The credit was denied by the Assistant Collector on the observation that the testing was a post manufacturing activity and at which time and stage the machines were fully manufactured and therefore the credit taken was irregular. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision in the face of case law placed before him. The present appeal from the Revenue is directed against this order.3. Shri Ragesh S. Mehta shows us order No. 4768-69/97/WZB, dated 27-10-1997 in which this very issue in the case of the same assessees had been dealt with by the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the...
Naresh Amritlal Shah and ors. Vs. Kantilal Chunilal Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR379; (2001)1BOMLR482; 2001(1)MhLj572
ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.(1). A handful few amongst the whole Jain Community tend to create a meaningless controversy threatening to divide the Jains on an equally absurd point in respect of the manner in which their Guru or Sadhu is to be worshiped. Whether nine points of the body of Guru [Navangi] should be worshiped or he should be worshiped only on one point [Ekang]? Fortunately there is no dispute or controversy in respect of the manner in which the Idol or Murti of any Tirthankar is to be worshiped. Generally, a Murti of God is worshiped and not a living human being, howsoever great he or she might be. Such living great souls in the form of human body are always shown reverence or respect of Ibadat and the Jains call it to be a 'Guruvandana'. The Jain Gurus i.e. Sadhus or Monks, always have their sojourn in what is known as Upashraya where the Jains go to take their Darshan and offer Vandana and take their holy blessings in the form of what is known as Mangalik and Dharmalabh. The Ja...
New Revtira Co-op Housing Society Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Off ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR691
ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. The petitioner society has failed this petition under Order 47, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. Code and sought review of the Award dated 23-1-1998 passed by this Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 6 of 1995. The review petition was filed on 21-4-1998 and as such there was some delay in filing the same. However, the delay has already been condoned and the review petition has been admitted.2. The petitioner society was respondent No. 1 in the said land reference which was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Government of India had made acquisition of a plot of land of Backbay Reclamation along with a six storeyed structure standing thereon. There was a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Code in which S.L.A.O. passed an order on 22-1-1993, fixing the value of the land at Rs. 15,40,236/- and that of the building at Rs. 2,67,890/-. After adding statutory allowances under sections 23(1)(a) and 23(2) of the...
Mrs. Jyoti S. Doshi Vs. M/S Hindustan Hosiery Mills
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom474; 2000(4)ALLMR389; 2000(3)BomCR813; (2000)3BOMLR408; 2000(4)MhLj228
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. The plaintiff herein, a woman litigant, has filed this summary suit for recovering the amount advanced by way of a loan to the defendant company. The plaintiff has sought a decree for the sum of Rs.1,06,375/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal claim of Rs. 70,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till payment and/or realization. The plaintiff has not paid any Court fee on the plaint and it is averred in para 12 of the plaint as follows :-'The plaintiff being a female litigant in the present suit is exempted frompayment of Court fees and hence no Court fees have been paid.'This suit has been lodged on 3rd April 1998 and the plaintiff is seeking to proceed with the suit without payment of the Court fees in view of the then prevailing Notification dated 1st October 1994 issued by the Government of Maharashtra invoking the powers conferred under section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 remitting the fees payable by women li...
Procter and Gamble (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. Endolabs Limited and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR306; 2000(4)BomCR394
ORDERB.N. Shrikrishna, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated16th December 1999 made by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Notice of Motion and vacating the ad-interim order made by the Court on 19th February 1999.2. The plaintiffs came to Court alleging that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of a multinational company which is highly reputed and deals in pharmaceutical and consumer products; that the 1st plaintiff has been carryingon business in India since about 1966, inter alia, in consumer products, medicines, detergents and pharmaceuticals. The 2nd plaintiff is the proprietor of an internationally well known mark VICKS. The plaintiffs gave the details of their promotional expenditure figures as exceeding several million Dollars per year. The 2nd plaintiff is also the owner of several Indian registered trade marks. The figures of the sales turn over of Vicks products sold by the 1st plaintiff is said to be in crores of rupees every year. Vicks pharmaceutical product...
Subhash Krishna Kanitkar Vs. the Bhiwandi-nizampura Municipal Council ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR447
ORDERPer D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks appropriate directions to the first and second respondents to demolish a building consisting of ground and six upper floors constructed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 on a land bearing City Survey No. 3331 and house property Nos. 358 and 358/1 at Kasar Alley, Bhiwandi, District Thane.2. The case of the petitioner is that originally there was a single storeyed structure on the said property. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are alleged to have applied for and obtained repair permission from respondent No. 2 and it is alleged that the said repair permission was for the purpose of carrying out repair work to a ground floor and two upper floors. The case of the petitioner is that even the said two upper floors were never in existence. The repair permission is stated to have been issued on 5th May 1995. According to the petitioner, in 1998, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 started work on a completely ne...
Pune District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Bank Karmachari Sangh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR811
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner bank has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the judgment and order dated 1-3-1994 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Pune in a Complaint ULP No. 378 of 1988 filed by the respondent No. 1 in the petition under section 28 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the same. The petitioner bank is aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order granting a declaration to the respondent union that the petitioner had engaged in an act of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act by framing the impugned service rules. The petitioner was also aggrieved by the second consequential part of the order directing the petitioner bank to cease and desist from indulging in the said act of unfair labour practice by not giving effect to the said service rules under Circular No. 3500 dated 12-4-1988. Both the parties herein would be referred to ...
Noble International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT754Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals) confirming confiscation on the ground of gross undervaluation a consignment of LPG conversion kits imported by the appellants and imposing of penalty of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 112 of the Act.2. The Advocate for the appellant says that he does not wish to challenge the liability to confiscation of the goods and the liability to penalty on the appellant. He says however that the goods in question could not be cleared by the appellant and they had already been sold.The appellant has undergone considerable financial loss and has not embarked upon any import thereafter. He prays therefore for setting aside penalty upon him.3. The Departmental Representative emphasises the reasoning that the value determined by the Collector was more than seven times the value that was declared. He says the nominal penalty imposed is fully sustainable.4. On merits it is debatable whether the Collector's order could be sustained. He has relied...
C.T. Tikku Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-01-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT519Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Deposit is required of following penalties imposed. Rs. 25 lakhs aprox. on HMG Industries, and Rs. 2.5 lakhs on C.T. Tikku, H.B. Doshi, Z. Hajeebhoy, all employees of HMG industries.2. After hearing both sides on the stay applications, we note that against duty demanded of Rs. 25 lakhs approx. Rs. 32 lakhs has already been paid by HMG Industries during the adjudication. Thus applicant has a strong prima facie case with regard to penalty. Though penalty has been imposed on him, the Commissioner notes for the reason that the goods, which are stated to have been undervalued by him during import, were not "within custom jurisdiction for confiscation". Apart from the fact that this is factually wrong, the goods being in Hyderabad according to the notice itself; this is prima facie no ground for imposition of penalty. This leaves behind penalty totalling Rs. 7.5 lakhs on the employees. Thus figure is slightly more than a balance of Rs. 7 lakhs leftover after paying the duty. Accordingly ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›