Mumbai Court June 2000 Judgments
i.C.i.C.i. Ltd. Vs. Veena Textiles Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas269(Bom)
R.K. Batta, J.1. The plaintiffs seek judge's order for directions to the court receiver, Bombay High Court to pay them all the amounts of ad hoc royalty deposited and/or to be deposited by defendant No. 1 after deducting court receiver's commission costs, charges and expenses. The same is being contested by defendant No. 1.2. The proceedings already stand transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') consequent to the notification dated July 16, 1999, by which, the Central Government has established Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT') under Section 3 of the said Act.3. While the proceedings were pending in this court, on a notice of motion, an order was passed on March 25, 1998, appointing the court receiver, Bombay High Court as the receiver of the immovable properties described in exhibits A-1 and A-2 and movable properties as described in exhibi...
Tag this Judgment!Kashiram Mahipati Bhaskar and anr. Vs. Khandu Tulshiram Jadhav and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR224; 2001(1)BomCR130
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment of the M.R.T., Pune dated 23rd April, 1987 in MRT-P-III-18/83 (TNC.A.86/83)2. The petitioners claim to be the tenants in respect of the land bearing 275/11, 276/68, 274/8E/1 and 274/88 all situated at village Sawargaon, Taluka Junnar, District Pune. The respondents are the owners in respect of the suit lands.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that section 32G proceedings were initiated in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 274/8E/1 and Survey No. 274/88 wherein purchase price came to be fixed and mutation entry in that behalf was also recorded. However, the said proceedings were eventually dropped since the original owner of the suit lands viz. Gangubai was widow on the tiller day i.e. 1-4-1957 on account of which the tenant's right to purchase the said lands stood postponed by virtue of section 32F of the B.T. & A.L. Act. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Sou. Kusum Shivaji Ingale and anr. Vs. Shivaji S. Ingale and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: II(2000)DMC622
Pratibha Upasani, J. 1. This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner/original applicant/wife Kusum Shivaji Ingale, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13th December, 1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, in Criminal Revision Application No. 59 of 1993, allowing her revision application only partly and enhancing the quantum of maintenance payable to petitioner No. 1 from the respondent/husband from Rs. 200/-per month to Rs. 300/-per month.2. The order of maintenance with respect to the child Kum. Bharati (Rs. 150/-per month) was not disturbed by the Revisional Court.3. Few facts/which are required to be stated, are as follows:Petitioner No. 1 Kusum and respondent No. 1 Shivaji Ingale are admittedly husband and wife. It is also an admitted position that out of the said wedlock, Kum. Bharati was born and at the time of the filing of the petition, she was 3 years old. The applicant/wife had made application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Nathubhai Babarbhai Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ535
S.A. Bobde, J.1. These appeals are from a conviction for offences under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act'). Appellant No. 1, Mahendra Ramchandra Tendolkar has been convicted for an offence under Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Appellant No. 2, Nathubhai Babarbhai Patel has been convicted under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. As both the appeals arise from a common judgment and order, both are heard together and decided by this common judgment. The prosecution story, in brief, is as follows :2. Appellant No. 1, Mahendra Tendolkar was at the relevant time a resident of village Sandore, Vasai. So also appellant No. 2, Nathubhai Patel was resident of Vasai.3. On 27-10-1990 the Deputy Director of Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB), Mumbai i.e., Mr. Narendra Kakar (PW-6) received information that 850 kgs. of contraband, recorded this information in writing, as required by law, then reduced it to B.R.I Form, and sent it to the headquar...
Tag this Judgment!Ramgonda Ningonda Patil Vs. Paragonda Ramgonda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR87
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The brief facts of this case are that one Ramgonda Satgonda Patil owned considerable moveable and immoveable property. It appears that the said Ramgonda Satgonda Patil died in 1946. The Respondent herein i.e. Paragonda and the lather of the Appellant i.e. Ningonda were the two sons of Ramgonda Satgonda Patil. After the death of the said Ramgonda Satgonda Patil, the Respondent as well as the father of the Appellant continued to act as the members of joint family. It appears that the father of the Appellant i.e. the Ningonda died in the year 1949, and at that time the Appellant herein was a minor, and his natural mother Gaurabai was his guardian. It appears that the Appellant-Plaintiff and his mother had continued to stay and mess together with the Respondent-Defendant as the members of the joint family. It appears that on 18th April, 1955 a partition had taken place between the Appellant and Respondent and at that time, Appellant was a minor and his mother Gauraba...
Tag this Judgment!Hammanna S. Nayak Vs. Vijay Kumar Kalani and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4438
ORDERPratibha Upasani, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application is filed by the petitioner/original complainant, being aggrieved by the order dated 2nd July, 1993, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Estate, Bombay, dropping the proceedings against the accused persons/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, in Case No. 140/S/92.2. Few facts, which are required to be stated, are as follows :The complainant/petitioner filed complaint in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Estate, against the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. The complainant/Harnmanna S. Nayak in his complaint dated 14th July, 1992, had averred that he was working as Marketing Officer with Tata Metals and Strips Limited, having its office at Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Bombay - 400 001. His company manufactures Cold Rolled and Hot Rolled Steel Strips and markets the same throughout India. The complainant is au...
Tag this Judgment!Shri C.V. Joshi Vs. the Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR269
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition by the Judgment-debtor takes exception to the order passed by the Judge of the Small Causes, Bombay dated 28th July, 1999 in Misc. Notice No. 20 of 1999 in Misc. Notice No. 716/1994 in L.E. Suit No. 157/183 of 1983.2. The short question which arises for consideration in this case is whether it is mandatory for the Executing Court to frame an issue on the basis of the stand taken by the rival parties for deciding the question raised before it. Secondly, whether the Court below was justified in suo motu recalling the issue, which was already framed earlier, by the impugned order.3. Briefly stated, the Respondent had instituted a suit for possession against the Petitioner wherein consent terms came to be filed on the basis of which the said suit was disposed of. As per the consent terms the Petitioner filed an undertaking before the Small Causes Court that he would vacate the suit premises on or before 31.12.1983. Inspite of the said undertaking th...
Tag this Judgment!Choudhary Engines Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC552
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Commissioner of Customs Jaipur, whereunder he had jacked up the assessable value of the 80 Pcs. imported Automobile Diesel Engines of different makes/brands from Rs. 3,87,517 to Rs. 18,84,160 and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs.2. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry dated 28.12.99 at ICD, Jaipur for clearance of 80 imported "Automobile Diesel Engines Used" of different makes. The appellant declared the value at Rs. 3,87,517, the examination of the goods was completed on 12.1.2000. As per the examination. 63 Diesel Engines (used) were found to be fitted with gear box and 17 were found fitted with gear and gear box whereas the importer had declared the goods as "Automobile Diesel Engines Used".The adjudicating authority sought to take proceedings in terms of Public Notice No. 19/99 dated 12.11.99 and also Under Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Growmore Exports Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)78ITD95(Mum.)
1. Three different assessees are involved in these appeals. All the appeals are directed against separate orders of the learned CIT(A), all dated 31-3-1995 in respect of the assessment year 1990-91. Since the issue involved in all the appeals is the same, they are being disposed off together by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.The facts and circumstances of each case are similar. However, the CIT(A) has passed a speaking order in the case of Harsh Estates (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 5897 (Bom.) of 1995] and has followed this order in the remaining two cases. Hence, again for the sake of convenience and brevity, we shall be referring to the facts in the case of Harsh Estates (P.) Ltd. (supra). The grounds of appeal, quite contrary to the rules, are narrative and argumentative and run into 18 pages. The assessee has placed on record, the synopsis of grounds of appeal at page 1 of the paper book. For the purposes of disposing off these appeals, we shall keep the synopsis ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeo Ramchandra Kale and ors. Vs. Vijay Bhikaji Raut and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR98; 2001(1)BomCR219
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay dated 23rd July, 1984 in Tenancy Application No. 156 of 1983.2. The petitioners are the landlords in respect of the agricultural land bearing R.S.No. 21/6A admeasuring 26 Are and R.S.No. 21/128 admeasuring 7 Are of Village - Jamsande situated in Deogad Tahsil, Dist.- Sindhudurg. The respondents are the successors of Sitaram Raut, who was admittedly a protected tenant in respect of the suit land. It is not in dispute that proceedings in relation to declaring the said Sitaram Raut as protected tenant were held sometime in the year 1948 wherein he was declared as a protected tenant on 15-3-1948. The mutation entry in that behalf has also been recorded. The said Sitaram Raut expired on 30th December, 1948 i.e. two days after the Bombay Act No. LXVII of 1948 (The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948) came into effect.3. The present case is therefore, governed by th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »