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.
Rukhaminibai W/O Narayan Khandale and ors. Vs. Member, Maharashtra Rev ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR718
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition challenges the decision passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 16th January, 1996, in Revision Application No. Ten. 143/90. The original proceedings related to land bearing S. No. 19/1 admeasuring 3.04 ha of mouza Akot. The petitioners claim to be tenants-protected lessees in respect of the suit land. In the circumstances the application was filed by the petitioners before the tenancy authorities under section 49-A of the Act that they have become deemed purchasers by operation of law. The said application was allowed by the Tahsildar on 21st March, 1990. Immediately, thereafter the petitioners entered into transaction with the third parties on 30th April, 1990 by executing the sale-deed which is duly registered. The fact that they had entered into said transaction was neither revealed before the appellate authority nor before the tribunal or even in the present writ petition. Nevertheless the appeal preferred by the landlord challengi...
Alfa Beta Chemisalts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT691Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant, after filing the declaration required by Rule 57G, took Modvat credit of the duty paid on a consignment of its product dyetol DF, stated to be a dispersing agent, cleared by it to customers, returned by that customer for reprocessing. The credit so taken to supply towards payment of duty on the goods cleared after such reprocessing.2. Adjudicating on a notice issued for denying credit on the ground that the finished product could not be an input at the same time. The Asstt. Collector, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) held that credit was not available. Hence this appeal.3. That a finished product, which is sent back for reprocessing for the reason that it is defective can be considered to be an input has been decided by this Tribunal in Alcobex Metal Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1996 (68) E.L.T. 146, which has been followed by other decisions of the Tribunal.The departmental representative emphasises the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the ...
Mrs. Pushpa P. Mulchandani and ors. (All Petitioners Through Constitut ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ARBLR284(Bom); 2001(1)BomCR592; (2001)1BOMLR169; 2000(4)MhLj819
B. N. Srikrishna, J.1. This review petition has been taken out by the petitioners for review of the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 1999 by which the chamber summons was dismissed with regard to the prayer clause (a) as regards amendments indicated in paragraphs (i), (ii), (viii), (ix) and (x).2. By the judgment and order dated April 23, 1999. I took the view that the application made for impleading one Haresh Melwani was liable to be rejected and also held that Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not enlarge the power of the Court with regard to condonation of delay which was considerably whittled down under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('1996 Act').3. Mr. Bulchandani, learned counsel for the review petitioners, contends that Section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code ('C.P.C.') enjoins that the procedure provided in the Code with regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. T...
Ralliwolf Limited Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-i, for ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)1BOMLR235; [2001(88)FLR692]; (2001)ILLJ1423Bom; 2001(2)MhLj169
ORDERDr. D. T. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for final hearing.2. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether an action to recover dues payable under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, is maintainable when the employer who is sought to be proceeded against, is an Industrial Company in respect of whom a proceeding is pending under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Since the petition involves a lis not merely between the employer, the Petitioner before the Court, and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the grant of any relief would impinge upon vital interests of the employees engaged in the industrial undertaking, the Unions representing workmen were impleaded in these proceedings. Accordingly, the Association of Engineering Workers and the Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar Sangh have been impleaded as theThird and the Fo...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shri Razzak Akbar Khan Rampuri Pathan and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2001BomCR(Cri)192; (2001)1BOMLR263
ORDERR. J. Kochar, J. 1. Heard both the learned Counsel for their respective parties. 2. After the turn of the 20th Century, the turn of this Appeal has reached for its hearing and final disposal. The State was in queue having knocked our doors in the year 1985. The incident which gave rise to the present proceedings itself has attained the age of majority from the date of its occurrence i.e. 26th January, 1982. Even then better late than never. The learned Counsel for the Accused have made even this point for not sentencing them and to spare them. 3. A communal riot-like situation took place in the heart of the City of Pune on the evening of 26.1.1982 where one group attacked with arms the other which was unarmed in the street. A procession under the banner of Patit Pawan Sanghatana passed through a locality of Muslims giving some objectionable slogans against those who wanted Pakistan. It is alleged that the Accused amongst others attacked those in the procession with deadly weapons ...
Bank of India Vs. Shree Satya Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR547; (2000)3BOMLR852; 2000(4)MhLj657
R.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This reference has been made to this Bench of resolving a conflict of opinion between different learned Single Judges of this Court on the issue as to whether the execution proceedings pending before this Court are required to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal ('DRT') under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRT Act').2. Since the issue that is raised is a conflict of opinion as to a legal provision, the facts are not very material. Nonetheless this may be pointed out: the plaintiff (Bank of India) obtained a decree in the sum of Rs. 10 lacs against the defendants. The decree was made pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 17th November, 1986 (per Mrs. Justice Sujata Manohar). The plaintiff took out Execution Application No. 20 of 1991 for recovery of the amount due under the decree. When the execution application was taken out, the Prothonotary and Senior Master has some diffic...
Sanjay Son of Namdeo Khandare Vs. Sahebrao S/O Kachru Khandare and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR800
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides. 2. This revision application takes exception to the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mahagaon, dated July 24, 1998, directing appointment of Court Commissioner. On going through the said order, it would appear that the Court has appointed the Court Commissioner empowering him to visit and inspect the spot being suit field and to submit report regarding actual possession of the suit field. This would tantamount to appointing Court Commissioner for collecting evidence regarding possession. It is well settled law that the Court Commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting evidence. The learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the order by contending that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.3. I am afraid, this submission cannot be accepted since the law cannot change on the basis of f...
Anjuman Khairul Islam and ors. Vs. Mrs. Zulekha Mazhar HussaIn and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR556
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioners seek to impugn an order dated 1st February, 1996 of the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai. The School Tribunal, by its order, has set aside an order dated 19th April, 1994 passed by the petitioners, terminating the service of the first respondent as an Instructor in the Junior College of Education. A direction has been issued to reinstate the first respondent with back wages after deducting the salary which was earned by the first respondent in a School at Valsad.2. The First Respondent passed her B.A. examination from the University of Mumbai in 1985 with Psychology and Sociology. The B.A. degree course is an integrated course of three years, and the subjects offered by the first respondent included English (compulsory and optional), Hindi, English Literature, Sociology, Scientific Method Foundation Course, Mathematics, Communication and Child Psychology. The medium of instruction through which the first respondent completed her B.A. was...
Deokabai Wd/O Ganpatsing Solanke (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Miraj Hiraman Ing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR9
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur dated 27-10-1998 in Tribunal Appeal No. B-109/5/98 decided.2. This writ petition was heard on 17-8-2000 and the judgment was also pronounced in open Court. However, immediately before rising of the Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner mentioned the matter and urged that the judgment may not be signed since vital matters have not been brought to the notice of the Court including the decision of this Court reported in : (1985)87BOMLR342 Barikrao Nayansing Rajput v. Bandu Ana Bhil and others. At that time the Counsel for the respondent had already left the Court and therefore, the petitioners' Counsel was asked to inform the other side and mention the matter by giving notice to the other side. The matter was once again mentioned before me on 22-8-2000 and a request for rehearing the matter was made, when the Counsel for the contesting respondent i.e. respondent No. ...
Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: (2002)81ITD456(Mum.)
1. The assessee is a company owned by the Government of India. It functions as the international telecommunication carrier in India. It was incorporated in the year 1986 with the main object of taking over the entire management, control, operations and maintenance of the overseas communication service of the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India, with all its assets and liabilities with a view to establishing, developing, providing, operating and maintaining all types of international telecommunication networks, systems and services.2. While completing the assessment for the asst. yr. 1995-96, for the previous year ended 31st March, 1995, under s. 143(3) of the IT Act, the AO noticed from Schedule 18 of the accounts (network cost) that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 282.60 crores as licence fees to the Department of Telecommunications (DOT). The amount was debited to the P&L a/c for the year. He noticed that similar amounts were debited in the accounts of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »