Mumbai Court July 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.
i.C.i.C.i. Ltd. Vs. Ceeta Industries Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: [2001]105CompCas426(Bom)
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Heard counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants. By way of this motion the petitioners sought two reliefs, (i) the leave granted by this court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on June 22, 1999, be revoked ; (ii) the receiver appointed by this court shall not take possession of the subject-matter of the suit.2. Since the first question relates to or touches upon the jurisdiction of this court, I have to first decide that question. Rule 12 of the Letters Patent of this court was granted on the basis of the pleadings in para. 14 of the plaint, which says that part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The leave of this court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, is required if only a part of cause of action arises in the jurisdiction of this court. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that no part of cause of action arose within the local limit of this court. Therefore, leave granted has to be revoked.3. N...
Navinkumar Tiwari Vs. Principal, Thadomal Shahani Engineering College ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR243]; (2002)IVLLJ699Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The services of the Petitioner were terminated by the 1st Respondent. Briefly put the charge is that the Petitioner who was working as Peon with the 1st Respondent, demanded and received an amount of Rs. 4,000/- from a student of the Institution for enhancing his marks from 7 to 17 in respect of one question on the answer paper during the course of the II Year Engineering Examination. A department enquiry was held in which the evidence of the student as well as the examiner was recorded. A finding of misconduct had been arrived at. The penalty of removal from service was imposed. The Petitioner challenged the order of the removal before the College Tribunal. The College Tribunal, by the impugned order dated October 28, 1999 has upheld the order of removal. 3. Two submissions were urged on behalf of the Petitioner: (i) In the present case the Enquiry Offic...
Dr. Baban Lahanu Gangurde and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR52
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application is filed by the petitioners/original accused, being aggrieved by the order dated 30th June, 1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, framing charges against the petitioners. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon framed the charges against the petitioners as follows :'Firstly, that on or about 26-9-1991 at 9.30 p.m. and upto 29-6-1991 till 11.00 p.m. you accused No. 2 with intention to cause death of the patient by name Sau. Meenabai w/o. Bhalchandra Wani, in your 'Mauli' Hospital at Camp Road, Malegaon and you without any legal authority and certificate of Medical Association and/or without any licence from lawful authority operated deceased Meenabai and thereby said Meenabai died due to the bodily injury upon her person and you accused No. 2 committed an offence under section 304 of I.P.C. and within my cognizance.Alternatively, that you accused No. 2 treated the lady patient Sau. Meenabai Balchandra Wa...
Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T. Corporation Vs. Shri RafiuddIn Sk. Hab ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR77; [2000(87)FLR234]
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner, a statutory corporation established under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, is aggrieved by an order dated 7th February, 1992 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Nasik in Complaint (ULP) No. 218 of 1989 filed by the present respondent under section 28 read with Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 praying for a declaration that the present petitioner had engaged in an unfair labour practice within the meaning of the aforesaid items and further praying for employment of his son under the Corporation on compassionate grounds as provided under its circular dated 10th September, 1975 modified by the subsequent circulars dated 15th October, 1987 and 9th December, 1988 whereunder the petitioner Corporation appears to have formulated a scheme to employ the sons or daughters of such employees who were declared medically unfit to be continued in its employment.2. The undisputed facts are that the respondent wa...
Shri Maroti S/O Jaiwanta Bhalerao Vs. M.S.R.T. Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR82; [2000(87)FLR114]
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner was employed by the respondent as a Helper. He was served with a charge sheet on 1st June, 1982 levelling a charge against him under Clauses 3, 10 & 11 of the Discipline & Appeal Procedure. The allegations levelled against him in nutshell were that while enroute journey of the bus from Nanded to Kinwat he unauthorisedly drove the bus and dashed against a tree and met with an accident causing damage to the bus, which was to the tune of Rs. 1,500/-. It was specifically alleged against him that he was not authorised to drive the bus as a Helper and he was, therefore, guilty of the misconducts levelled against him.2. It is pertinent to note that to the aforesaid specific charges levelled against him that he was driving the bus unauthorisedly he did not submit his written explanation though he was called upon to submit such written explanation. It is further pertinent to note that he did not even take part in the domestic inquiry which was instituted against...
Serrao Francis Socorro Vs. Town and Country Planning Board and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR517
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner was the occupant of office premises bearing No. F-16 situated at Panaji, Goa in the building known as 'Casa Dr. Domingos Roque de Souza'. They were purchased by a sale deed dated 30-3-1992. The original promoters had agreed to sell office No. F-16 to M/s. Champs who assigned and transferred their rights in the said shop with the concurrence of the owners and the developers, admeasuring 10 sq. metres. No objection certificate was issued under section 49 of the Town & Country Planning Act by North Goa Planning and Development Authority. The sale deed thereafter came to be executed and registered with the Sub-Registrar of Ilhas. Panaji Municipal Council issued occupancy certificate. The petitioner was thereafter put in possession of the premises and has been in continuous occupation thereof. On 16-8-1993, the petitioner procured a licence from the Panaji Municipal Council for putting up a wooden mezzanin...
Sau. Changuna @ Vaishali Vilas Bagal Vs. Vilas Ramchandra Bagal and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: II(2000)DMC674
ORDERPratibha Upasani, J.1. Heard Mr. Ghaisas for respondents 1 to 6 and Ms. Poornima Kantharia, learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 7/State. Perused the proceedings. It appears that the applicant/original complainant has filed this revision application for enhancement of the sentence of respondents 1 to 6/original accused, who were convicted by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharpur, by his judgment and order dated 12th March, 1993 for offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.2. Mr. Ghaisas, who is appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein, informs the Court that the accused have filed Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1993 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, and that appeal cannot be disposed of, since the record and proceedings has been called by this Court, af...
B.V. Jewels Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT776Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an Application (No. 377/2000) for early hearing of the appeal and application CUS/1249/2000/Mum. is an application of waiver of payment of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. These two applications have been filed in the Appeal filed by the importer who is having 100% E.O.U. at SEEPZ, Mumbai. The appellants have exported certain gold jewellery studded with diamonds and other precious and semi-precious stones declaring a value of Rs. 2,14,76,664/-. Out of the said goods remaining the 236 pcs. valued at Rs. 18,89,773/- have been re-imported within the prescribed time. But 1342 pcs. valued at Rs. 74,62,015/- were imported after expiry of one year. It appears there has been certain discrepancy but in respect of the items namely 1578 pcs. the valuation differs. The Customs sought to invoke provisions of Section 112(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and initiated proceedings for confiscation but ended with the impugned order being made by the Commissioner Sahar Air Port confiscating the goods and...
Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Integral Bearings Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT155Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in these two appeals by the department is the classification of goods described as integral shaft bearings, or water pump bearings. In each of the orders impugned in these appeals the Collector (Appeals) has taken the view that the article is classifiable as a bearing under Heading 84.82 of the tariff and not as alleged in the notice and accepted by the Assistant Collector as parts of internal combustion engine.2. Heading 84.82 is for ball roller bearing. The heading proposed by the department in the show cause notice 84.09 is "Parts suitable for use solely or principally with the engines of the Heading 84.07 or 84.08". These two headings are for spark ignition and compression ignition internal combustion engines. The notice in other words sought to classify these goods as parts of such engines.3. The bearings in question consist of a combination of a bearing and of a shaft. A ball and roller bearing generally consists an inner and outer ring normally...
M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT178Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is taken up for disposal after waiving deposit with consent of both sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him for failure to deposit the duty demanded.2. Duty has been demanded on the ground that proof of exports of goods removed under bond in terms of rule 13 has not been furnished. The contention of the appellant that the bond before the Maritime Commissioner undertaking to produce proof of exports has been furnished by the exporter as permitted by the Board (for which its circular No.87/87/94 dated 26-12-1994 is cited) and therefore it is the exporter who will be answerable as per the bond to the Maritime Commissioner, has not been considered.3. In the light of this submission, the applicant has a strong prima facie case. I therefore allow the appeal, and set aside the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall decide the appeal before him without insisting upon any deposit....
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »