Mumbai Court June 2000 Judgments
Ramchandra Mahadev Vs. Padmakar Balkrishna Samant and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR40; 2001(1)BomCR163
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the original plaintiff who claims to be the sub tenant in respect of the suit structure, challenging the judgment and order dated 2-6-1987 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai in Appeal No. 439 of 1977.2. The premises in question is situated in property known as Samantwadi, Goregaon, Mumbai 63. The respondents are the owners in respect of the said land. Some time in the year 1955 the respondents had let out open piece of land to one Prabhunath Pandey. It is stated that the said Prabhunath Pandey constructed a structure on the said land which was subsequently let out to the petitioner herein. The respondents filed the suit against the said Prabhunath Pandey for possession of the land in question. It appears that the said suit, which was filed in the year 1962, against Prabhunath Pandey, came to be decreed and the said decree was put in execution on Augus...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive President and ors. Vs. Bhaskar Bhagwant Yadav and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR798; 2001(1)BomCR159
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Though in the title of the writ petition, the petitioners have invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the learned Counsel for the petitioners at the outset stated that in the light of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, the petitioners are confining this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and correctness of the order passed by the School Tribunal, Pune Division, Pune on 17-12-1997 whereby the said Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the respondent No. 1 herein against the petitioners challenging his supersession.3. The facts may be briefly stated. The first respondent herein filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, Pune on 21st July, 1993 challenging the appointment of third petitioner herein on the post of Headmaster by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The third petitioner herein was appointe...
Tag this Judgment!B.D. Goel Vs. Ebrahim Haji Husen Sanghani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)314; 2001CriLJ450
ORDERPratibha Upasani, J.1. This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner/original complainant, who is Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, being aggrieved by the order dated 17th March, 1994 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, rejecting the application made by the complainant for recalling the prosecution witness No. 1. It is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and quashed, and the complainant's application for recalling witness i.e. P.W. 1 on 16th March, 1994 in case No. l/CW-1989 be granted.2. Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows :Prosecution was initiated by Assistant Collector of Customs against two accused by name Ebrahim Haji Husen Sanghani and Jakoo Kasam Bavla for offences punishable under Section 135(1)(a) and Section 135(1)(b) bothered with Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The complaint was filed on 19th August, 1988....
Tag this Judgment!Shri Gajanan Tukaram Mohite Vs. Shri Bapu Gopal Shelar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR77
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The brief facts of this case are that the Appellant was the monthly tenant in an oral tenancy agreement with the original Plaintiff Bapu Gopal Shelar. The said original Plaintiff, since deceased, is now represented by his legal heirs. The Appellant herein was the monthly tenant in Room No. 4 in Grampanchayat House No. 233 in Ward No. 4 at Vangani, Taluka Ulhasnagar, District Thane. The Appellant was paying an amount of Rs. 30/- as and by way of monthly rent to the landlord Bapu Gopal Shelar.2. It appears that the Appellant was in arrears of rent from May, 1980 till October, 1980. Therefore, the landlord Bapu Shelar had issued a notice to the Appellant through his Advocate dated 18th August, 1980 and terminated the tenancy of the Appellant. Both the learned Counsel conceded that the provisions of Bombay Rent Act will not be applicable to the premises as the same was situated at Vangani, where the said Act does not apply.3. It appears that the landlord Bapu Shelar ...
Tag this Judgment!Shantabai W/O Anna Todkar and ors. Vs. Sheshappa Kallappa Todkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR133
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In the above matter, the brief background is that the Respondent herein being the original plaintiff had filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 321 of 1976 against the present Appellants for partition of the ancestral property and had obtained half share therein and also for mesne profits. It appears that the said ancestral property consisting of agricultural lands bearing Survey No. 596/2 admeasuring 1 Hectare and 24 Ares and Survey No. 1137 admeasuring 80 Ares and suit property bearing C.T.S. Nos. 2766, 2782 and 2949 were situated at Mouja Ashta. The Respondent's father Kallappa Todkar was a businessman. It appears that he had suffered heavy loss in the business and he was fearing that he may loose all the ancestral property as well as the self acquired properties. In view thereof, to protect the interest of the family members and for their maintenance the said Kallappa Todkar had executed a Deed of Settlement dated 3rd July, 1934. By the said Deed of Settlement the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. C J. Shah and Co. and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC167
1. There four applications seeking early hearing were argued by Shri K.M. Mondal. The revenue involved is about Rs. 16 lakhs. Shri Mondal submits that the goods have not been cleared by the importers. The goods are perishable in nature. Hence the urgency. We find that these appeals have been filed by the Revenue. Earlier similar appeals on the same point have also been filed along with applications for stay of operation thereof by the Revenue. The Tribunal decling to stay operation of the orders, had granted permission to seek early hearing (Order No. C-ll/1008 to 10/WZB/2000, dated 27.3.2000). It appears that the Revenue has so far not moved any such application.2. We grant early hearing in these cases. If in the earlier batch of cases any such application is moved by either side, those cases also be posted for hearing out of turn.3. One of the issues involved in this bunch of appeals is the maintainability of appeals against orders of provisional assessment. In their judgments in th...
Tag this Judgment!Natwar Textile Processors Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC823
1. The dispute in this appeal revolves around the application of notification 80/76 or notification 126/76, as they stood between 24-11-1979 and 31-7-1983 and notification 137/88 as superseded by notification 30/82. Notification 80/76 exempted cotton fabrics when subjected to processes specified therein from payment of duty.Notification 80/76 is reproduced below before its amendment: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts cotton fabrics, falling under sub-item 1 (2) of Item No 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), when subjected to the finishing processes specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed, from the whole of the entry in duty of excise leviable thereon subject to the conditions laid down in the corresponding column (3) of the said Table.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE TABLE------...
Tag this Judgment!Kilburn Engineering Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom405; 2000(3)ALLMR757; 2001(1)BomCR111
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. By consent Notice of Motion is made returnable forthwith.Heard counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants. The suit is for one permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff for restraining the first defendant to encash the Bank Guarantee executed by the second defendant on behalf of the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant. It is produced along with the covering letter as Exh. B at page 20 of the plaint.2. The first defendant had invoked the said Bank Guarantee and the Notice of Motion is for a temporary injunction restraining the first defendant from encashing that Bank Guarantee Exh. B. The short facts which gave rise to the suit are as follows :3. The first defendant had invited tender for installation of Pig Barrels for WI and WF pipe lines at 13 Platforms as per bid evaluation criteria on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. However, we are not very much concerned with the details of the work. In pursuance of the said invitation, t...
Tag this Judgment!Sayyed Anwar Vs. Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR107; [2000(86)FLR823]; (2001)IIILLJ803Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner employee is aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court dated January 23, 1989 denying him back wages during the period between the date of dismissal and the date of the order dated January 23, 1989. It appears that the petitioner was in employment of the respondents as a Mechanic from April 1, 1967. He came to be dismissed from employment with effect from May 18, 1985. At that time he was working as a Driver. It is an admitted fact that he was dismissed for his act of remaining absent unauthorisedly and without getting his leave sanctioned. It appears from the record that he remained absent on two occasions and when he was called upon to submit his explanation he explained that he was ill and was hospitalised on both the occasions. It appears that he had submitted medical and hospital record to prove his illness which was a ground beyond his control. It further appears that the respondents held an ex parte inquiry.2. The Labour Court has recorded a find...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kantrao S/O Gyanbarao ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR813]; (2001)IIILLJ993Bom
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner, a statutory Corporation, established under the Road Transport Corporation Act of 1950, has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated August 16, 1989 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Aurangabad. The undisputed facts are as follows:2. The Respondent-employee was employed under the petitioner Corporation as a Conductor. By a charge sheet dated June 2, 1982 it was alleged against him that he had committed an act of misconduct under Clauses 12(b) and 35 of the Disciplinary and Appeal Procedure for dishonesty, fraud and misappropriation of the Corporation's money. It was alleged against him that he had issued tickets to two passengers who had boarded at Latur for less denomination than required for the journey. It was, therefore, alleged that he had misappropriated the Corporation's money and had committed an act of dishonesty and fraud. The Responde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »