Mumbai Court September 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.
Pallavi Vinod Patni (Smt.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)536; 2001(5)BomCR15; 2001CriLJ3197
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner who is wife of detentee-Vinod Babubhai Patni in this writ petition is seeking to challenge the detention order bearing No. SSA 0900/I-SPI-3(A) issued by Shri S.H. Shool, Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra. By detention order dated 13-4-2000, the Detaining Authority specially empowered under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA') issued an order for detention of Vinod Babubhai Patni after being satisfied that his detention was necessary to prevent him in future from smuggling the goods. The detention order is placed on the file of the writ petition as Annexure A and grounds in support thereof are at Exhibit B. The detention order came to be passed in the back drop of facts that on 3-7-1999, the officer attached to the Commission rate of Customs (General) seized 150 gold bars from Sayed Karim Gaffoor. The statements under section 108 of the Customs Act were record...
Surekha D/O Nagorao Pawar (Kumari) and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR200
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith and by consent taken up for final hearing. Learned Counsel waive service.2. The batch of petitions, which is being disposed of by the present order, raises a common question. Consequently, the petitions are being heard together and will be governed by this order. All the petitioners in the petitions before the Court are Assistant Teachers who have been employed by Vastal Vithal Ashti Vyang Vidyalaya, Gangakhed, Taluka Gangakhed, District Parbhani. This institution which employees the teachers concerned in the petition is the second respondent in these proceedings and is an institution conducted for the benefit of physically handicapped persons. The institution is being run by the third respondent. The petitioner in the first petition was appointed as an assistant teacher on 1st April 1992. The petitioner was thereafter, continued in the employment of the institution until the academic year 1998-99. The District Social Welfare Offic...
ishwar S/O Ramchand Bulbule Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)131; 2001CriLJ4884
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for the murder of Akash alias Bhakchand S/o Tilakchand Ambule, aged 27 years under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with an axe as a result of which the deceased had died within a period of 10 hours of the assault. The prosecution had examined 11 witnesses including 3 eye witness, three doctors, pancha of recovery of axe under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, besides other witnesses including the Investigation Officer.3. The trial court, after assessment of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had duly established the charge against the accused and as such, the appellant was held guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life which is the subject matter in this appeal.4. Learned Advocate for the appellant urged before us that essentially. It is a case of one blow only even though other minor inju...
J.B. Impex Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT210Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These bunch of appeals Nos. - Appeal No. C/245/2000-Mum, Appeal No.C/260-R/2000-Mum, Appeal No. C/489/2000-Mum, Appeal No. C/493/2000-Mum, Appeal No. C/495/2000-Mum, Appeal No. C/238-R/2000-Mum have been filed against the decisions of the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, and the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai holding that the imported goods not as DRY GARLIC as claimed by the appellants but as GARLIC classifiable under Tariff heading 0703.20. The adjudicating authorities have imposed penalties and fine at various sums. In respect of Appeal No. C/495/2000 the goods were imported at a value of US$ 325 PMT but loaded to US$ 510 PMT on the basis of contemporaneous import.2. The appellants before us have imported DRIED GARLIC (Chinese White).Some of the appellants have approached the Singapore sellers. At the time when the contracts were enterted into sometime in July, 1999, the position was reported to be that DEHYDRATED GARLIC POWDER, FRESH GARLIC and DRIED GARLIC were ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. General Insurance Corporation of India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: [2002]254ITR203(Bom)
1. In view of the judgment of this court in Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. v. CIT : [1984]145ITR793(Bom) , question No. 1 is answered in favour of the assessee. Expenses incurred in connection with issue of bonus shares is revenue expenditure.2. As regards question No. 2 is concerned the Assessing Officer has held that while deductions under Section 80M, expenses incurred on account of salary paid to staff, stamp duty, transfer fee and safe custody charges are relatable to earning of dividend. We do not find any merit. The above expenses on account of salary paid to staff are not directly relatable to earning of dividend. So also payment of stamp duty, transfer fees and safe custody are not relatable to earning of dividend. They may be relatable to acquisition of share but not to dividend being earned.3. Hence, question No. 2 is answered in favour of the assessee.4. The appeal is dismissed....
Gangadhar S/O Bajirao Barkul Through His Legal Heirs Vs. Ramjibhai S/O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR508; 2001(3)BomCR152
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. Communication dated 17-1-1983 bearing No. SSC/EVP/Osmanabad 52.54 issued by the respondent No. 2 Settlement Commissioner for Compensation Pool Properties-cum-Custodian of Evacuee Property, MS Bombay, whereby the Collector has been directed to take necessary steps to hand over the vacant possession of the property in question from the petitioner and hand it over to the respondent No. 1, is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition.2. Relevant facts to be considered for the purposes of the present petition, are narrated as under:---The petitioner, an agriculturist, is the legal heir of original cultivator Bajirao, who was cultivating Survey Nos. 239 and 353 admeasuring 33 acres and 21 gunthas and 12 acres and 11 gunthas respectively, of village Yermala from Mohammed Matin and Mohammed Ahmedsaheb. Bajirao, according to the petitioner, was cultivating the land as a tenant much prior to the creation of Pakistan in the year 1947. Mohammed Matin, on partition, migr...
Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. Gautam Hari Vedi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR335; (2001)1BOMLR155; [2001(89)FLR95]; 2000(4)MhLj326
B. H. Marlapalle, J.1. The appellant/petitioner has assailed the order dated 28th April, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1602 of 2000 to the extent of refusal to grant interim relief to the appellant/petitioner. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge, reads as under :'Rule. No interim relief.'2. We have heard Shri K. K. Singhvi, the learned senior counsel with Shri Naik and Shri Ghuge, for the appellant/petitioner and Shri T. K. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 is not a necessary party and he is, therefore, directed to be deleted forthwith.3. By the consent of the parties the Appeal was taken up for final hearing on 31st August, 2000. The factual matrix leading to this Letters Patent Appeal is required to be briefly stated, as under :4. The appellant is a Public Limited Company with its registered office at Tardeo, Mumbai and has a factory in the M.I.D.C. Industrial Area at Waluj, near Aurangabad. The...
K. Guruswami and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)126; (2001)1BOMLR716; 2001CriLJ917; 2001(1)MhLj83
S. D. Gundewar, J. 1. The present Criminal Writ Petition is directed against the order dated20.11.1997 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge. Nagpurin Criminal Revision Application No. 1102/97, whereby the RevisionalCourt confirmed the common order dated 5.6.1997 passed by the learnedAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur in a Regular Criminal CaseNos. 37/96 and 38/96. 2. Heard Shri Uday Dastane, the learned Counsel for the petitionersand Shri A. S. Fulzele, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant State. 3. Few facts giving rise to the present controversy are as below :-The petitioner No. 1 K. Guruswami is the proprietor of M/s. Ravi Surgicals, Tamil Nadu whereas the petitioner No. 2 Smt. L. Rajammal is the proprietor M/s. Sakhti Surgicals, Tamil Nadu. Both the petitioners are engaged in manufacture and supply of Roller Closed Woven Bandage. They had supplied Roller Closed Woven Bandage to their dealers of Nagpur. The complainant is a Drug Inspect...
Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. Gautam Hari Vedi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ573Bom
B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The appellant/petitioner has assailed the order dated April 28, 2000 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1602 of 2000 to the extent of refusal to grant interim relief to the appellant/petitioner. The said order passed by the learned single Judge, reads as under:'Rule. No interim relief.' 2. We have heard Shri K.K. Singhvi, the learned senior counsel with Shri Naik and Shri Ghuge, for the appellant/petitioner and Shri T.K. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 is not a necessary party and he is, therefore, directed to be deleted forthwith. 3. By the consent of the parties the Appeal was taken up for final hearing on August 31, 2000. The factual matrix leading to this Letters Patent Appeal is required to be briefly stated, as under:4. The appellant is a public limited company with its registered office at Tardeo, Mumbai and has a factory in the M.I.D.C. Industrial Area at Waluj, near Aurangabad. The empl...
Chief Engineer, Western Zone-ii Central Public Works Department and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR1
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. Rule.3. Respondents waive service. Rule taken up for final hearing forthwith by consent of parties.4. This petition assails the order passed by the learned Single Judge as a Judge designated by the learned Chief Justice under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 8 of 1999.5. On 2-11-1994 an agreement was signed between the Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Division and the respondent for carrying out construction of 'C/O CTC-III for C.R.P.F. at Mudkhed and SH : C/O II Nos type III Quarters, and one number stilt and two numbers type IV quarters I/C internal W/S-SI and drainage'. Accordingly, work order came to be issued for a contractual value of Rs. 35,22,925/- and it was to be carried out within a period of 13 months i.e. by 31-12-1995. The contractor failed to maintain this deadline and the res...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »