Mumbai Court August 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.
Balaji Mahadeo Sayam Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR645
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Shri B.M. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent. 2. This writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharshtra, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, dated April 3, 1990, in Complaint U.L.P. No. 1083/1988. The short question which arises in this case is whether the petitioner, who was initially working with the Central Provincial Transport Services, which were taken over by the State Government undertaking, viz. State Road Transport Corporation, with specific assurance that service conditions of the company employees will not be adversely affect, including the condition regarding the age of retirement of employees of the Transport Company, which was 60 years at the relevant time, is entitled to be retired at the age of 60 years. The said question has been directly answered in the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of S.P. Dubey v. Madhya Pradesh St...
Executive Engineer and anr. Vs. Moreshwar Mahadeorao Wakhare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR474; 2001(3)BomCR838; [2001(91)FLR596]; (2002)IVLLJ436Bom
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, dated August 23, 1990, in Revision (ULPN) No. 71/1990.2. Briefly stated, the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Truck driver by the petitioner No. 1 vide order dated May 17, 1971. The respondent No. 1 continued to work as truck driver until his services came to be terminated by order dated September 3, 1983. The ground, on which, services of the respondent No. 1 have been terminated, is that the respondent No. 1 was found to be medically unfit by the Civil Surgeon at the relevant time. The respondent No. 1 challenged the order of termination by filing complaint (UPLPA) No. 520/1984 before the Labour Court, Nagpur. The Labour Court, by its judgment and order dated February 8, 1990 allowed the complaint and ordered reinstatement of respondent No. 1. Against the said decision, revision application w...
Vijaykumar Son of Keshavrao Deshpande Vs. Ramkrishna Champat Ekhar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR199
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Indian Constitution takes exception to the order, dated 17th November, 1990, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, in Revision Application No. Ten. A. 185/88.2. Briefly stated, petitioner is the landlord in respect of suit field bearing Survey No. 1/2, area 2.33 acres of Mouza-Mund (Narayan), Taluka-Nandgaon (Khandeshwar), District-Amravati. The respondents 1 and 2 are the successors of Champat, who claimed to be cultivating the suit field as a tenant. The petitioner was born on 19th February, 1956. The petitioner became absolute owner in respect of the suit field by virtue of a registered Partition-Deed effected between the family members on 29th June, 1959. At the relevant time, the petitioner was admittedly a minor and attained majority only on 19th February, 1974. Before the petitioner had attained majority, suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Tahsildar, and the Tahsildar, after due enquiry, by h...
Sulzer Orthopedics India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT692Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant has sought for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the penalty amount of Rs. 1 lakh and for the stay of the recovery on the ground that the applicant is not the importer and the equipment imported belongs to one physician Dr. Lawrence Dorr, a foreign national, who came to India on 24-10-1999 and the equipment could not be cleared for home consumption as the physician's baggage for want of requisite papers to be tendered before the Customs officers.2. They were being posted to that physician and did not solicit this equipment. The applicant was not aware about the nature and conditions of this equipment and there is no deliberate attempt to misdeclare the facts or suppress them. There is no purpose of claiming ownership to the equipment once the physician left India by 1-11-1999. The fact that the equipment were found to be used one may not be untrue as it is the personal professional property of the physician a foreign national. The re-export is permitted by the Commissi...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Metal Pack
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT161Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in these appeals filed by the department is whether the respondent could avail total exemption benefit of Notification 175/86 with regard to some of the products manufactured by it and choose not to avail of the exemption on some others. In the common order impugned in the appeal the Commissioner has held that the assessee had the right to do so because Trade Notice 121/88 dated 30-8-1988 issued by Bombay-I Collectorate permitted this.2. The ground in the appeal that this trade notice referred, not to exemption under notification 175/86 but exemption under notification 180/88 and 69/86 and therefore does not apply to the facts of the present case, is not disputed by the representative of the respondent.He, however, relies on the decision in Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. v.Collector - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759, while he says must be followed because the appeal against that decision has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.3. The larger Bench of the Tribunal whic...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Jayna Packaging Private Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT150Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal by the department questions the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the cartons manufactured by the respondent to this appeal were made out of corrugated paper falling under heading 48.08 of the Tariff and hence entitled to exemption, under notification 59/88. The notification exempts from duty printed cartons, boxes, containers and goods made out of paper or paperboards falling in any of the heading specified in the notification. One of the heading specified is 48.08 which at the relevant time included corrugated paper and paperboards.2. The contention in the appeal is that the cartons are made out of the board which are classifiable under heading 48.90. While no reason is clearly spelt out in the appeal or in the show cause notice which was issued to the respondent to say why the material would be classifiable under heading 4811.90, it is apparent because the cartons were printed.The grounds of appeal reproduces heading 48.90 and says "it clearly indicated that...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. G.S. Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT816Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of cellulose acetate phthalate. In the order impugned in this appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the classification list filed by the manufacturer for the product under heading 29.42, overruling the classification determined by the Assistant Collector under heading 29.12.2. We have heard the departmental representative and Dr. H.J. Mehta and Shri M.R. Nadkarni, Consultant.3. Heading 39.12 covers cellulose and its chemical derivatives and cellulose ethers not elsewhere specified or included in primary forms.The alternative heading 29.42 is a residuary heading for other organic chemical. The Commissioner places considerable reliance on the fact that the substance is a chemically defined organic compound. That is entirely irrelevant. Every commodity that is classifiable under chapter 39 is in fact a chemically defined organic compound. The fact that the goods are used as an ingredient for bulk drugs being ...
Gajrabai R. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT110Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector holding liable to confiscation of the consignments of fabrics imported by the appellant, for fixing a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs for redemption and imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the importer. The Additional Commissioner dealt with 11 consignments imported by the appellant.2. Clearances of the goods was claimed in terms of entry at 4.1 of Appendix 17 of the Import Policy of 1983-84. This entry permitted import inter alia of lining and inter-lining materials excluding nylon taffeta coated fabrics to the extent of 15% of the value of cotton readymade garments, hosiery and knitwear that were exported. The Additional Collector has ordered confiscation of the imported goods on the grounds that they were 100% polyester fabrics and found to be suitable for use as shirting. He has also relied upon an opinion of M/s. Laffans and M/s. Vogue Textile House that the goods are shirting materials. Provisions of clause (d) of Section 111 ...
National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Limited Vs. Anant Par ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ187Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. By these petitions, the order dated December 21, 1999 passed by the Industrial Court is sought to be impugned by the petitioner which is the National Textile Corporation. All the petitions raise a common question. The facts are similar and those in the first petition may briefly be adverted to.2. The complaint in question was filed under items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. In the first complaint, the Complainant, respondent herein, was in the employment of the erstwhile Kohinoor Mills Company Limited as a clerk. In 1983, an Ordinance known as the Textile Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Ordinance, 1983 came to be promulgated by 'virtue of which the Cotton Textile Undertakings of 13 Mills including Kohinoor Mills Company Limited were taken over. The Ordinance was subsequently replaced by an Act of 1983. The case of the respondent herein before the Industrial Court ...
Burroughs Welcome (i) Ltd. Vs. D.H. Ghosle and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR713; [2000(87)FLR740]; (2001)IIILLJ57Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. These two petitions challenge the validity of an order passed by the Industrial Court in a Complaint, being Complaint (ULP) No. 834 of 1996, filed by 17 employees under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('The Act'). In Writ Petition No. 1661 of 2000, the Petitioner before the Court is the employer, while in the companion petition, being Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1628 of 2000, the Petitioners before the Court are the 17 employees. The employer is aggrieved by the direction to the effect that the complainant-employees be absorbed in service within two years as permanent employees. The employees are aggrieved by the finding of the Labour Court, that there was no unfair labour practice committed by the employer specifically in keeping the workers as temporary employees for several years. The complaint before the Industrial Court was filed with reference to Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »