Mumbai Court January 2001 Judgments
Abdul Rehman Fakir Mohd. Durani Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: 2001BomCR(Cri)517; (2001)2BOMLR752; 2001CriLJ4844
N. V. Dabholkar, J. 1. These two appeals are by two accused who were tried together before the Court of Special Judge for Greater Bombay. In. N.D.P.S. Case No. 196 of 1995 the two accused were charged and tried for offences punishable under Sections 21 r/w 8(c) as also Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). Having held that conspiracy is not proved, the learned Special Judge acquitted both the appellants, as far as offence punishable under Section 29 of the Act. However, both the accused appellants are held guilty for unlawful possession of heroin and therefore both of them are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac in default further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Being in custody since 1st August, 1995 they are also given set off towards under trial detention.This conviction and sentence is being challenged in two appeals by the two accused.2. As per prosecution story Kandivili unit of...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Prime Aluminium Limited Vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Limite ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR347; (2001)3BOMLR593
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J. 1. The Plaintiffs are a public limited company carrying on business amongst others of manufacturing oval tin containers. The Defendants are also a public limited company and are an Indian subsidiary of a multinational company which is a world leader in dental products.2. The Plaintiffs herein are seeking through prayers (a) and (b) specific performance of the Agreement allegedly entered into between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. Alternatively through prayer (c) they are seeking a declaration that the Defendants are estopped from refusing to purchase and lift oval tin containers from the Plaintiffs to the extent of 51.5 lakh tins/ containers per month.3. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, it is stated that the Plaintiffs were incorporated in the year 1971 and from 1975 onwards they were supplying aluminium collapsible tubes to the Defendants. In 1983, the Defendants were faced with serious irregularities in the supply from M/s Metal Box (India) Pvt. Ltd., their the...
Tag this Judgment!Pralhad Sitaram Yeole Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj377
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. This is an application for suspension of the order of conviction dated 24-8-2000 passed by the Special Judge, Jalgaon in Special Case No. 6/98 in view of the pendency of the Criminal Appeal No. 371/2000 in this Court.3. Facts in brief, relevant for the decision are that the petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No. 371/2000 against the judgment and order dated 24-8-2000 passed by the Special Judge, Jalgaon in Special Case No. 6/1998. By the said judgment and order, the Special Judge has convicted the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has sentenced him to under Rule I. for one year besides, fine of Rs. 3,000/- for offence punishable under Section 7 and Rule I. for three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act. The appeal filed against the said judgment and order has been admitt...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Kalawatibai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR445; 2001(3)BomCR236
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner-Bank/original plaintiff initiated Regular Civil No. 585/1988 against the respondents/defendants in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 14,685.15 paise together with further interest at the rate of 12.35 per cent, per annum till the realisation of the entire amount.2. The above said Civil Suit came to be dismissed in default of the plaintiff on August 23, 1991. The reason for such a dismissal was that since April 9, 1991, the plaintiff did not take appropriate steps in the matter so as to serve the defendants.3. The above said order dated 23rd August, 1991 was sought to be set aside and suit was sought to be restored on the file vide M.A.R.J.I. No. 1867914. This was an application for setting aside the order of dismissal in default and for restoration of the matter. It is not clear from the order sheet as to on what date this M.A.R.J.I. No. 186/91 was filed. However the Order Sheet dated 7.5....
Tag this Judgment!Anz Grindlays Bank Vs. General Secretary, Grindlays Bank Employees Uni ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR279; 2001(3)BomCR720; [2001(89)FLR375]; (2001)ILLJ1238Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned Award and Order dated September 15, 1999 in Reference No. CGIT-2/135 of 1998 in Industrial Dispute referred by the Government of India for adjudication of legality and justifiability of the Order of termination of one Shri Deepak Mungekar, a Peon, from their employment.2. The facts are very simple. The Petitioners, a giant multinational, had appointed on March 19, 1990 a workman in the sub-staff (Peon) category. He continued till July 30, 1994 continuously without any break. By an order dated July 30, 1994 his employment was discontinued on the ground that he was no longer required as additional workman. Alongwith the said order of termination he was given a Pay order for a sum of Rs. 92,966.20 which included Rs. 75,049.67, difference in wages payable to him and Rs. 21,722.99 as Bonus. The amount of Rs. 10,725.54 was the amount of compensation payable under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The concerned wo...
Tag this Judgment!Airex Valves Private Limited Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT473Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have read the stay application, memorandum of appeal, and other papers and heard the Departmental Representative and thereafter I propose to take up the appeal itself for disposal, after waiving deposit.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of valves. It sent out parts of its inputs for further processing and return. In accordance with Sub-rule (6) of Rule 57F, it deducted 10% of the value of the inputs in its personal ledger account (PLA). On the goods being returned to it, it took credit of the amount in the same account. This was objected to by the Department, which resulted in issue of notice, culminating in an order of the Assistant Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In that order, the Assistant Commissioner has held that whether debit was made in the PLA or RG 23A account, the credit of the amount so deducted could, on the receipt of the inputs after processing, be made Only in t...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Hindustan Lever Employees Union and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR294; 2001(3)BomCR363; (2001)3BOMLR450; [2001(88)FLR943]; (2001)ILLJ861Bom; 2001(2)MhLj837
ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners, a Multinational Company and enlightened management, are aggrieved by the order dated 20th February, 1997 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 625 of 1987 filed by the union mainly for getting the services of about 22 watchmen regularised in employment. The union filed the said complaint under Items 5. 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act on the ground that the aforesaid 22 watchmen were in employment of the petitioner Company at its various places from 1982 onwards continuously. In fact, one of these watchmen had joined as back as on 12th November, 1962. There is no dispute about the dates of joining which are given by the union in the Annexures A, B and C in the complaint filed by it. One watchman had joined on 16th March, 1982 while the others had joined in the year 1983, 84. 86 and 87. In view of the aforesaid facts that some of them had joined had put in at least more than 240 days ...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Hydro Companies Employees Union Vs. the Tata Power Company Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR261; (2001)3BOMLR770; [2001(88)FLR917]; (2001)ILLJ919Bom; 2001(4)MhLj765
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner is a representative and approved union for the local area in the respondent No. 1 undertaking under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner union has challenged the ad-interim order dated 19th October, 2000 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court Exh. UT filed by the petitioner for certain interim orders in its complaint of unfair labour practices filed by it under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 under Hems 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. The complaint of the petitioner union is that the respondent No. 1, Company has failed to implement the settlement dated 28.1.2000. The main grievance of the petitioner union appears to be that the respondent Company has committed an illegal change contemplated under Section 46 of the Act read with Section 42 and Items 1, 2 and 4 of Schedule II of the said Act. In the complaint, there are other issues which are yet to be de...
Tag this Judgment!Consolidated Pneumatic Tools Co. (India) Limited Vs. President, Associ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR412; [2001(88)FLR1011]; (2001)ILLJ884Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioner company has challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, two awards dated September 9, 1996 and May 30, 1998 in reference IDA No. 501 of 1987 by the two Labour Courts respectively.2. One Shri Sane is the concerned workman in the present petition. Though the President of his union is impleadcd as the Respondent No. 1, I would be referring hereinafter Shri Sane, the concerned workman, as the workman. Broadly, the facts which have arisen are as follows:The workman joined the company on February 20, 1974 and he was working as a machine operator. On October 20, 1985 he was served with a charge sheet, whereby, he was charged of commission of theft of company's property and also an act of subversive of discipline. The workman submitted his reply to the said charge sheet denying the charges as false, fabricated and an act of victimisation. Not satisfied with the explanation given by the workman, the petitioner company institu...
Tag this Judgment!Acmevac Pumps and Engineering Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT448Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Collector has held that the brand name "ACMEVAC" which the appellant fixed on the vacuum pumps, the goods manufactured by it belong, not to it, but to M/s. Acmevac Sales Pvt. Ltd and concluded that the appellant was therefore not entitled to the benefit of Notification 175/86 for the goods manufactured and cleared by it between October, 1987 and December, 1991.2. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that this name was in use by it from 1968 onwards. M/s. Acmevac Sales Pvt. Ltd. was started in 1983 to market the product manufactured by the appellant and to other companies. The appellant and Acmevac Sales Pvt. Ltd. were related, and duty was paid at the price at which the Acmevac Sales Pvt.Ltd. sold the goods to its dealers. This would explain by name Acmevac figures in the invoices and the letter heads of this Acmevac Sales Pvt.Ltd. 3. The departmental representative emphasises that although the letters are the sales logo us...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »