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.
V.R. Hiremath and ors. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR132; 2002(2)BomCR1; [2002(93)FLR546]; (2002)IILLJ785Bom
P.S. Patankar, J.1. The petitioners by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are praying for a writ or a direction to the respondents to give benefits of the Pension Scheme called Contributory Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme as formulated under the Memorandum of Understanding dated November 7, 1987. The petitioners are the employees of the respondent No. 1 who retired during the period from October 1986 to November, 1987. The respondent No. 1 is the Government Corporation incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent No. 2 is Union of India who has floated the said Corporation. The respondent No. 3 is the Officers' Association or a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 are the present Trustees of the Trust which came into existence on December 24, 1987. 2. Since 1984-85, a dialogue was going on between the respondent No. 1 and the employees Union for introducing a scheme of self generating pension s...
Hamid Khwaji Saheb Sayyed Vs. Kashilda Edward Fonseca
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR611
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The original plaintiff, presently 85 years old lady approached the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay by way of a suit for declaration that the agreement dated 7th December, 1981 and the power of attorney dated 21st December, 1981 stood terminated and/or revoked as per the termination letter dated 23rd August, 1989. She also prayed for an alternative relief that the defendant may be ordered and decreed to hand over possession of the suit land to her along with mesne profit from the date of wrongful possession of the suit land by the defendant. In addition to the aforesaid main reliefs, the plaintiff had also prayed for other consequential and incidental reliefs in the suit. It was the case of the plaintiff that she was the owner of the suit land and was in possession thereof. By an agreement dated 7th December 1981, she had agreed to sell and transfer the suit land to the defendant for the price of Rs. 1000/- and on the terms and conditions contained in the said agreem...
Mahindra and Mahindra Limited Vs. Sunil Yeshwant Pandit and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR602; [2002(94)FLR564]
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Respondent No. 1 was employed as a fitter in the Nasik factory of the petitioner from 1-9-1983. It appears that on 26-7-1985, when respondent No. 1 was leaving the factory premises on his scooter, the security supervisor on taking search of his scooter found Shank Drill Bits of different diameters under the scooter mat. Respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted for the offence of theft on 28-7-1985. An enquiry was instituted against him wherein evidence of the security supervisor and the administrative officer of the company was led on behalf of the petitioner and evidence of one Mr. Woodman was recorded on behalf of respondent No. 1. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 was guilty of misconduct and that the charges levelled against him had been proved by the petitioner. The petitioner dismissed respondent No. 1 from service on 31-1-1986. 2. Aggrieved by this, respondent No. 1 approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nasik under the Indus...
Suhasini Sunil Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)243; 2002CriLJ853
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant-accused was tried for the murder of her own child under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and was found guilty of the same. The learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 28-2-1997 sentenced the Appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-in default, further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The period of detention during custody from 8-10-1995 to 28-2-1997 was set-off under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code.2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the appellant got married with Sunil Chavan P.W. 1 on 14-5-1995 and delivered a fully grown child on 3-10-1995. On 8-10-1995 at about 7.00 a.m. the husband of the appellant as also her in-laws went to field and returned therefrom at about 9.00 a.m. for taking breakfast. During this intervening period the appellant was alone in the house. When Sunil Chavan P.W. 1, husband of the appellant and his parents returned they found the child was lying near the appellant and upon enquirie...
Bashir Dada Desai and anr. Vs. Pandurang Atmaram Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002ACJ1910
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 16.9.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur, in M.A.C. Petition No. 156 of 1996. The claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed on the sole ground that the appellants have failed to establish that the accident in question had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the respondent No. 3.2. The facts in brief are that the appellants are the parents of deceased Niyajahamad Bashir Desai. On 26.5.1986 around 8 a.m., while said Niyaj was riding on the bicycle on Alabad-Kapashi Road he met with accident with the tractor bearing No. MZG 8594 which was driven by the respondent No. 3 herein on the same road in opposite direction. The tractor had two trolleys attached to it bearing registration No. MXL 4649 and MXL 4650. On account of said accident said Niyaj sustained grievous injuries and he...
Babu Bajirao Kutwal Vs. Damu Govind Kutwal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR941; (2003)105BOMLR909
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Member of the M.R.T. in the matter of MRT-P-X-11/83 (TNC.B. 299/83) Pune dated 11.8.1987 whereby the learned Member of the M.R.T. had directed the A.L.T. and Tahsildar to hold the enquiry in respect of Southern half portion of Gat No. 700/1A+3A area 2 acres and 6 gunthas assessed at Rs. 1 and 4 annas situated at Supe, Taluka Baramati, District Pune.2. The controversy arose when the A.L.T. and Tahsildar, Baramati in Case No. 32P(2)(c) Sale/162 granted the certificate in view of provisions of Section 32M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for convenience) for the entire land when the said land was put to auction none came forward except the present petitioner who paid the price of Rs. 75/- as purchase price of the said land. After the said certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner Shri Damu...
Deoppa Ishwar Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)246; 2002CriLJ1026
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Seven persons namely Deoppa Ishwar Shinde, Ganpat Maruti Shinde, Rajaram Ganpat Shinde, Uttam Rajaram Shinde, Sukhdeo Rajaram Shinde, Ishwar Maruti Shinde and Murlidhar Appa Shinde were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions case No. 30 of 1986 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 and 324 r/w. 149, IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 22-7-1986, the learned trial Judge acquitted accused other than Deoppa Ishwar Shinde on all the counts but, convicted and sentenced Deoppa Ishwar Shinde in the manner stated hereinafter :--(i) Under Section 302, IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer four years R.I.;(ii) Under Section 324, IPC (No separate sentence was awarded).2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid convictions and sentence, Deoppa Ishwar Shinde has preferred the present appeal.The State of Maharashtra has however, not challenged the acquittal of the six acquitted accused.3. Shortly sta...
Noble Projects and Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Export),
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT331Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal has been taken up for consideration with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the decision of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, whereunder he felt that there was a misdeclaration of export in respect of knitted jackets and pyjamas valued at US $ 36,000/- and US $ 18,000/- respectively and the drawback claim of Rs. 3,13,250/- was made. It transpires that the appellant has also exported other five items of textiles whereunder in respect of 100% cotton polyester woven jeans was procured by him from the market and exported the same. In respect of this item also the charge against the appellant was that he had misdeclared it. Yet it was found that he has not misdeclared it.3. During the course of the hearing, the learned Counsel pleaded before me that in respect of the items procured by the appellant from outside, it has been proved correct. When there is a mistake has occurred in respect of other two items ...
Daga Fibres and Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT622Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of Rs. 9,76,667/- by Daga Fibres & Synthetics Ltd., a penalty on it of Rs. 1 lakh and penalties on Gulab S. Daga, its director, Sushil Bafna, its manager, of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 25,000/- respectively.2. The applicant is absent and unrepresented. Common Counsel for the applicant seeks adjournment on the ground that he has gone away to Ti-rupati. The matter was last adjourned on 26-9-2001 at his request on the ground that he had gone to the U.S.A. We do not think that the Counsel's travels for personal reasons justify adjournment, especially more than once. We therefore decline to adjourn and, having read the stay application and heard the departmental representative, proceed to dispose of the stay application.3. Daga Fibres & Synthetics Ltd. imported a consignment of synthetic waste and claimed its clearance free of duty in terms of Notification 30/97. This notification exempts goods from duty subject to the condition that they are cover...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Epc Irrigation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC183Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals, one by the department and the other by the assessee, are against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune.The department's appeal is against the finding in that order that parts of the irrigation system that the respondent manufactured are correctly classifiable in Heading 84.24. This at the relevant time read, inter alia, "Mechanical appliances (whether or not hand-operated) for projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids or powders." The assessee's appeal is against that portion of the order in which he has held that the tubes and pipes of plastics that it manufactured are classifiable in Heading 3917.00 as tubes and pipes of plastics.2. The question of classification of irrigation systems and pipes for use in such system was considered by the Tribunal in Elgi Ultra Appliances Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (134) E..L.T. 245 (T) - 1999 (35) RLT 175]. In that decision, the Tribunal held that parts such as spray nozzles, sprayer heads etc. which would form components of a...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »