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.
Shri Purushottam Mishrilal Bhutara and ors. Vs. Jugalkishore R. Kothar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)1BOMLR126
Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. These three Criminal Writ Petitions involve a common question of law, and can be therefore disposed of by this common Judgment and order.2. The Petitioners in all these three Petitions are the same, who are the original accused before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji. Respondent No. 1 Jugalkishore Kothari/original complainant in all these Writ Petitions is also the same.3. The Complainant Jugalkishore filed three private complaints in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ichalkaranji under Sections 403, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present Petitioners. These were separate complaints which came to be numbered as Criminal Case No. 93/90. Criminal Case No. 91/92 andCriminal Case No. 92/90 respectively. The learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class issued the process against the accused. The Petitioners are the residents of Pali (Marvar) and it took considerable time to serve the summons upon the ...
Parvatibai Maruti Hande Vs. Satish Mohanram Prajapati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)4BOMLR516
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the Judgment of the Vth Additional District Judge, Thane dated 18th December, 1986 passed in Civil Appeal No. 193 of 1985.2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is the landlady while the respondent is the tenant who was inducted in the suit premises in the year 1977 which consisted of only one room admeasuring 7' x 7' situated at Janu Bhendi Pada, Ambernath. The petitioner gave notice on 10th December, 1978 to the respondent demanding arrears of rent from January, 1978 to November, 1978. This notice was duly replied by the respondent. It is the respondent's case that besides sending reply the respondent offered the payment but the landlady refused to accept the same. Nevertheless, the petitioner sent another notice which is the suit notice dated 8th February, 1979 (Exhibit 20) demanding arrears from January, 1978 to January, 1979. By the said notice, the petitioner claims to have terminated the tenancy of the respondent in respect ...
Masina Hospital Vs. Mr. Hari Ganpat Kadam and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR372; 2000(4)BomCR749
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J. 1. Respondent No. 1, a Ward boy, was dismissed from services in the year 1987. This was, according to the petitioner, done after holding a due enquiry into the charges. The respondent No. 1 filed Complaint (ULP) No. 283 of 1987. After going through the evidence and after hearing the Counsel for the parties at length, the Labour Court by an elaborate and reasoned order held that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer against the complainant-respondent No. 1 is not fair and proper. The petitioner-Hospital was given liberty to adduce evidence to prove the misconduct before the Court. This order was passed on 24th May, 1994.2. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 78 of 1994. The Industrial Court partly allowed the revision application on the ground that the Labour Court has made certain observations in the absence of pleading and exceeded its jurisdiction and powers. It was also held that the Labour Court has given ima...
Duttatraya Laxman Kulkarni Vs. Aurangabad Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR173]; (2001)IIILLJ97Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The appellant was original applicant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation where he had filed an application under Section 4-A read with Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The appellant's case was that he was employed as a truck driver by the respondent company. According to him, he was on duty at Paithan on March 23, 1986 and he suffered an injury to his right foot-toe when a rusty piece of sheet metal had entered into his right foot while alighting from the truck, which he was driving, and which he parked on the premises of the company. He was admitted in the hospital and was treated there. It appears that initial wound got developed into a serious case of Gangrene '. and his right foot was required to be amputated from knee on August 28, 1986. From the date of the accident, he worked upto August 24, 1986. His last drawn wages were Rs. 750/-p.m. He filed the present application for compensation under the Act for total loss of his earnin...
Damu S/O. Rama Sonawane and anr. Vs. Sayyed Yousuf Sayyad JalaluddIn a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR35; [2000(87)FLR305]; (2001)IIILLJ714Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The old parents, father and mother of the deceased son, are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated April 24, 1990, dismissing their application, numbered as Application (WC No. 1/1988), claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, from the employer respondent No. 1, of the deceased, and the Insurance Company, the respondent No. 2, for the accidental death, which occurred during the course of and arising from the employment of the deceased, who was employed by the respondent No. 1 as a cleaner, who was physically working on the truck owned by respondent no. 1 and, who died in the accident, which took place on May 5, 1987 on the way from Ahmednagar to Bombay, at Khopoli. The parents have claimed an amount of Rs. 44,800/- towards compensation and other consequential reliefs provided under the Act, such as penalty and interest on the amount of compensation. The parents have further averred that their deceased son was drawing a sum of Rs. 5...
industrial Development Bank of India Vs. Krishna Filaments Ltd. and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR31; 2001(1)BomCR426
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The plaintiff which is styled itself as Industrial Development Bank of India (Debenture Trustee) filed the suit to claim certain amounts from the defendants due to them as Debenture Trustee. The Plaintiff was appointed as Debenture Trustee as per Debenture Trust Deed dated 24-10-1997. The plaintiff has agreed to act as Trustee of Debenture holders of the defendant No. 1 company. The complaint that generally made in the plaint is that the amount due to the Debenture holders have not been paid by the defendants in the light of the provisions of the Debenture Trust Deed. By invoking relevant provisions of the Debenture Deed, the plaintiff as Trustee can recall the entire amount from the first defendant and pay to the Debenture Holders, in case the 1st defendant commits any default under the Trust Deed.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by 1st defendant by way of this Motion contending that this Court has no jurisdiction in the light of the provisions...
Suessen Asia Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)(92)LC262Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These are four appeals filed by the assessee against the decisions Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai made on 30.9.1990 the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. While doing so the Commissioner (Appeals) has sought to follow the Judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Essar Gujarat .2. The assessee an Indian Company the 60% of the shares is held by German company and 40% is held by Indian company. In the joint venture agreement for by Indian company aggrieved to pay a lumpsum fees DM 0.50 million for licence rights, royalty at 5% of ex-works value and royalty at 8% of the ex-works value in case of export goods to their collaborators, M/s. Spindel Fabrik Suessen, Schurr, Stahlecker, Germany (Suessen). The question involved was whether this is considered as a part of the transaction value of the imported goods or not in all the four appeals. The various Assistant Commissioner as adjudicating authority have held that been provisional assessment may be finalised accordingly fo...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Associated Intermediates and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT177Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal a show cause notice was given calling upon the appellant Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad, as to why appeal filed by him should not be dismissed as the appeal was not verified and signed properly.2. Departmental Representative Shri U.V. Gaitonde represents that he has not received any instructions. In terms of Rule 8(3) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, any application or appeal should be signed by the appellant. In this case appeal was not signed by anybody but, a verification has been signed by the Deputy Commissioner one Shri Sunil Jain dated 9-2-2000. It is true that grounds of appeal has been signed by Commissioner on 31-1-2000 which has been enclosed with the authorisation. If the authorisation has been made in favour of some Central Excise officer, there is no necessity for the Commissioner to sign the grounds of appeal. It is therefore incumbent on the appellant namely the Dy. Commissioner, who has filed the appeal under the directions of the Commission...
Foundry Plant and Patterns (P) Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT106Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Appeal No. 108/95 dated 10-3-1995 issued on 20-3-1995 whereunder the Collector (Appeals), Pune, confirmed the Order-in-Original No. 124/94 dated 31-3-1994 passed by the Assistant Collector, Aurangabad, classifying the products manufactured by the appellants under chapter sub-heading 84.83. The appellants before us filed a classification list in respect of their products "worm gears" and "worm shafts" and sought to classify the same under sub-heading 90.33 claiming these are being manufactured for speedometer only. The Assistant Collector in the Order-in-Original after hearing the parties had classified the same under chapter sub-heading 84.83 and confirmed the differential duty holding that in terms of the explanation given in the HSN the products should be classified under the said subheading. An appeal was filed before the appellate authority. In the appeal before the appellate authority it was pleaded by the appellan...
Shirish Suresh Welling Vs. Smt. Sangeeta Avinash MaraThe and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)2BOMLR99; 2001(2)MhLj94
T. K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate, First Class, Link Court, Pune, which was confirmed by the judgment of the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revisional Application No. 581/99.2. The complaint was filed against the petitioner by Smt. Sangeeta Avinash Marathe under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for having dishonoured the cheque issued by the petitioner in the name of Mrs. Sangeeta Avinash Marathe. While that complaint was pending, an application was made by the petitioner under section 395 of the Cr. P. C. requesting the Magistrate to refer the matter to the High Court as section 138 of the N. I. Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties, has come to the conclusion that the section cannot be said to be invalid or unconstitutional as offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and therefore it need not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »