Mumbai Court January 2002 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.
Anant Janardan Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom87; 2002(2)ALLMR80; 2002(4)BomCR270; (2002)2BOMLR40; 2002(2)MhLj238
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mr. R.K. Mendadkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sonawane, learned Assistant Government Pleader.2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 20th October, 1997 issued by respondent No. 1 Returning Officer rejecting his nomination form for contesting the election in Ward No. 4 of Village Gram Panchayat Navghar which is reserved ward for scheduled tribes. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli - a notified scheduled tribe. It is his case that the Executive Magistrate, Uran on 22-4-1980 has issued the certificate certifying the petitioner to be belonging to Mahadeo Koli - scheduled tribe. The petitioner filed his nomination form on 9-10-1997 for Navghar Gram Panchayat election as scheduled to be held on 25-10-1997. The Returning Officer rejected the petitioners nomination form on scrutiny of the nomination paper on the following grounds:--'1. Your application does accompany with xerox copy of schedu...
Rustom A. Phirozemand Vs. Miss Roshan Boman Bozargi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR339; (2002)3BOMLR811; 2002(2)MhLj678
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The original defendant No. 3 is the present appellant. He was subsequently impleaded in the suit filed by the original plaintiff, the respondent No. 1 herein against the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. The suit was for administration of the estate of the deceased Boman Bozargi, who was the father of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and the husband of defendant No. 2. The dispute in respect of the administration of the estate was amicably resolved by all the aforesaid three parties. The learned trial Judge had disposed of the suit in respect of the administration of estate as per the settlement between the parties on 19th February 1997. The right and dispute in respect of the defendant No, 3 was left behind and the same has been decided in the aforesaid suit against the defendant No. 3, who was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. canteen and open air restaurant at Bombay Hockey Association gr...
Baburao Yadavrao Nareddiwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR350; (2002)4BOMLR86; 2002(3)MhLj515
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has raised two questions for adjudication by this Court. They are -- (1). That, the age of superannuation of teachers in affiliated colleges after acceptance of Vth Pay Commission Report is 62 years and not 60 years? and (2). Even if the age of superannuation is considered to be 60 years, in view of the previous agreement and initial Statutes of the University, a teacher retiring in the midst of any academic session, is liable to be continued till the end of academic session?2. There are hundred more such petitions raising identical questions. All of them can be conveniently disposed of by one order. Schedule A* annexed to this judgment enumerates those petitions. This judgment covers all those petitions.3. We heard all the learned counsel appearing for several petitioners in ail those petitions and learned counsel representing the Universities and the Government of Maharashtra. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners-teac...
Pandurang Tatoba Gurav Since Deceased Through L.Rs. Parvati Pandurang ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR575; 2002(3)MhLj695
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. Though the present appeal was admitted as the First Appeal, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Maqbul Ahmed Miya Girav v. Hydayatulla Baldi reported in 1993(1) B.C.R. 386 followed by a Division Bench in the case of Shivprasad Shankarlal Pardeshi v. Leelabai Badrinarayan Kalwar reported in : AIR1998Bom131 and the present appeal being arising from the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge in the appeal under Section 72(1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act'), it is necessary to ascertain whether the matter involves any substantial question of law or not, for the purpose of interference by this Court.2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that there is a Maruti Devasthan in village Gharniki in Atpadi tahsil of Sangli District which was originally managed by one Bhau Mhadu Gurav and on his demise from 21st...
Tata Consulting Engineers and Associates Staff Union Vs. Tata Consulti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR370]; (2002)IILLJ323Bom
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed by Appellant-Tata Consulting Engineers and Associates Staff Union ('Union' for short) against Tata Consulting Engineers ('Company' for short). Being aggrieved by the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, on April 22, 1996 in Reference (IT) No. 23 of 1984, and confirmed by the learned single Judge on March 9, 2000 in Writ Petition No. 3691 of 1999, the union has approached the Division Bench.2. Pursuant to a Charter of Demands made on behalf of the Union, a Reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, by the appropriate Government. The Tribunal considered demands raised by the Union. On the basis of the evidence on record, oral as well as documentary, the Tribunal held that the demand raised by the Union was not bona fide, and, accordingly, disposed of the Reference. In the operative part of the Award, the Tribunal observed thus:'Reference stands rejected. No order as to costs.'Against the Award passed by the Tribunal, the Unio...
Pune Municipal Transport Vs. Maruti Nana Chaware
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR290; [2002(94)FLR769]
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition challenges the order of the Labour Court wherein an amount of Rs. 58,643.24 has been allowed to the respondent as difference in subsistence allowance and bonus.2. The petitioner employed respondent No. 1 on a temporary basis. On 15-3-1980, when the respondent was in service, a strike was called and the respondent participated in the strike. As a result, the respondent was suspended from the work on 20-3-1980 and was reverted to the post of bus driver on 1-11-1980. An enquiry was held against the respondent and he was dismissed from service with effect from 13-6-1981. The respondent filed an appeal with the Transport Committee, which directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent as a driver on the basic pay of Rs. 425/- per month. The annual increment for one year was to be withheld by way of punishment. The respondent had simultaneously raised in industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication by an Award of 21-3-1985. The Labour Court di...
Goldmine Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nazareth Joseph Perriera and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR908a
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The order of the learned Trial Judge in this case reflects its strong sense of disapproval of the manner in which the consent terms came to be filed before the Court. That sense of disapproval, as the facts of this case would unfold, is justified. The learned Trial Judge has in the circumstances, by the order dated 9th November,. 2001 set aside the consent decree which was passed in the suit on 28th April, 2000 and restored the suit to the position as it obtained prior thereto.2. The First to Fourth Respondents instituted a suit, being S. C, Suit No. 5207 of 1998 before the Bombay City Civil Court against the Fifth to Seventh Respondents and the Petitioner. The Petitioner was the Third Defendant to the suit. The Seventh Respondent herein, was the Fourth Defendant to the suit. In the suit, a prayer for declaration was sought that certain documents relating to an immovable property which forms the subject matter of the suit bearing Survey No. 864 (part), admeasurin...
Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC549Tri(Mum.)bai
1.These two appeals have been filed against two different orders. C.165/91 has been filed against the decision of Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune made in Sr. No. 1/Cus/1991 dated 8.1.1991, whereunder the Collector had levied penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs against the appellant for violation of Section 112 of Customs Act 1962. Appeal No.C. 659/92-Bom has been filed by the appellant against the decision of Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals) Pune made in Order-in-Appeal P-l 15/92 dt. 20.4.1992 whereunder the collector as appellate authority had confirmed the finding of the Assistant Collector that a quantity of 1531.189 MTs of imported raw material was not accounted for as the appellants had illegally removed and disposed of the same. He, therefore, confirmed the Order-in-Original No.CEX/31/PIV/90 dt. 29.8.1990 passed by the Assistant Collector, Pune in demanding duty of Rs. 10,72,361/-.2. We shall deal with these two appeal seriatum (a) Appeal C. 659/92: This is an...
Krishna Filament Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT100Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal No. C/1025/2001-Mum. & C/74/2000-Mum. are taken up for final decision by this common order as the issues are interrelated. The issues in brief are as follows :- (a) The applicants herein are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE and Poly Propylene Ropes falling under Chapter 54 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in their factory at Boisar, Thane District. They were required to import various machineries for the manufacture of the above goods and for this purpose they applied on 16-10-1997 for grant of licence under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 to establish a Private Bonded Warehouse in their factory premises. A licence was issued to them, during the period 28-11-1997 to 17-8-1998 they imported 16 consignments of capital goods namely wire rope making machines, in knocked-down condition and the consignments were warehoused in the Customs Private Bonded Warehouse on execution of double duty bond. They applied for an EPCG licence for import of these g...
Berg Trading Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sheva
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT674Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants imported goods described as "Brass Scrap Drink as per ISRI Specification". The declared value was Rs. 11,73,760/-. On examination, the goods were found to be Brass Dross. Such Dross contains lead equal to or less than 1.25% of the given code and can be imported only by a unit registered with the Environmental Authorities.Where the lead content is higher than 1.25%, the goods require a licence with conditions specified relating to hazardous goods. The importers waived the issue of notice and claimed that the supplier had committed a mistake and had sent the wrong goods. It was claimed that Brass Scrap was valued higher than the Brass Dross and also that Brass Scrap attracted higher rate at which rate the importers had already paid the duty. The Commissioner in adjudication accepted these claims, but since the goods were imported in contravention of the provisions, directed their confiscation. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the observation that, but for m...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »