Mumbai Court February 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.
Mr. NalIn Virjee Shah Vs. Mr. Narayan Ramchandra Mhatre and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR473
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit The learned Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. In these proceedings, an order dated 29th September, 2001, passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, is sought to be impugned, In a suit for specific performance which was filed by the Appellant, the learned Trial Judge has rejected an application for the grant of an interim injunction. In these circumstances, the ad-interim injunction which had been granted on 29th March, 2001 came to be vacated. In the proceedings before this Court, the earlier ad-interim order of the learned Trial Judge was extended by an order dated 28th November, 2001 and has since continued to hold the field during the pendency of the appeal.3. A suit has been instituted by the Appellant for specific performance of an agreement to sell which was executed by and between the Appellant and the First Respondent on 11th October, 2000, Briefly stated, the a...
Smt. Mangalabai W/O Vijaysingh Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR86
D.S. Zoting, J.1. These are the two criminal appeals preferred by the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1993 on 14.2.1995. These two appellants along with one more accused namely Rakeshsingh @ Minty Tukmansing Bhadoriya, aged about 20 years were tried before the Sessions Court for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 120B and in the alternative under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the appellants along with Rakeshsingh were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one year. In addition to the above imprisonment awarded to the appellant Mangalabai, she is also convicted for offence punishable under Sections 194, 210, 203 of the Indian Penal Code an...
NitIn Narayan Pandare Vs. M.N. Singh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)812; 2003CriLJ510
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu has impugned the order dated 28-8-2001 passed by the first respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai detaining him under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996), (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act).The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 28-8-2001 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 29-8-2001 and their true copies have been annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to the petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure B) shows that the impugned order is founded on one C.R. namely C.R. No. 233/2001 registered on the basis of a complaint dated 25-6-2001 lodged by Badshah Abdul Mannan Shaikh for offences punishable under Sections...
Sayed Ali Handloom Carpet Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT235Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In these two cases certain carpet manufacturers/exporters situated at Varanasi were charged that they were misusing Import-Export Pass Book Scheme either by selling the goods cleared duty free or selling the passbook on premium in violation of the ITC restrictions imposed on such sale. The Marine and Preventive Wing of the Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate took up the investigations in respect of the appellants and issued show cause notice dated 27-8-1991 charging the appellants about the violations which they have committed. The appellants imported polyvinyl alcohol and dyes and they were charged of violating ITC restrictions mentioned above and thereby violating the provisions of the Customs Act, namely Section 111(d) and/or 111(o) of the Customs Act. The show cause notice required the appellants to show cause to the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai. That 1991 notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Customs resulted in adjudication order pa...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus., Vs. Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT585Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Notice issued to the respondent to this appeal proposed to impose a penalty on it under Sub-clause (bbb) of Clause (1) of Rule 17Q on the ground that it had intentionally paid duty in excess of that payable on five consignments of plastic parts manufactured and cleared by it between 20-7-98 and 17-8-98. The notice observed that the reduction in duty from the present level took place in July, 1998 and despite the officers advising the respondent to verify the correctness of the duty, it continued to pay the duty in excess. The Asstt. Commissioner found in favour of the department and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the manufacturer.3. The manufacturer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the penalty was based on an assumption that the assessee paid duties in excess so as to enable the purchaser down the line of these goods to take credit. He found this assumption to be unjustified and he therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the order. He also noted th...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-i Vs. Indoco Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT590Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to Modvat credit which was taken by Indoco Remedies Pvt. Ltd., the respondent to this appeal. The notice issued to it proposed denial on two grounds. The first was that it could not take Modvat credit of the duty paid on invoices which were issued in the name of a "loan licensee" i.e. person who utilised machinery and other facilities in the respondent's factory for manufacture of medicaments out of their own raw material and employing their skill. The second was that the respondent had taken Modvat credit on the basis of invoices of the manufacturer of the inputs which had been endorsed. Credit was proposed to be denied on the ground that there was no provision in law for such endorsement. The Asstt. Commissioner, who adjudicated on the show cause notice confirmed the proposal in the notice and denied the credit, and also imposed a penalty. The assessee appealed the order. The Commissioner (Appeals) was persuaded by ...
K.S. Agrawal Vs. the Tribunal and Assistant Registrar, Co-operative So ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom324; 2002(3)ALLMR830; 2002(4)BomCR730; 2002(2)MhLj522
1. Heard Counsel.2. This petition is directed against an Awardpassed by the adjudicating Tribunal appointed underSection 57 of the Maharashtra Agricultural ProduceMarketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter, for thesake of brevity, referred to as the Act). Few facts,which are undisputed may be noted to understand thecontroversy involved in this case and the question oflaw of some importance raised by the learned counsel forthe petitioners.3. The petitioners is a partnership businessdealing in cotton. The respondent no.2 is anAgricultural Produce Market Committee, Darwha. Therespondent no.3 is working as a broker (Aadatya) orCommission Agent, within the jurisdiction of theRespondent No.2-Committee. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5are agriculturists, who sell their agricultural producewithin the Market Committee, using the respondent no.3,as their Aadatya or Commission agent. The respondentno.1 is the Tribunal, constituted under section 57 ofthe Act. It is presided over by the Assistant Reg...
Jacob Chinnannan Vs. Sudarshan Aluminimum Industries Ltd., Nasik and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR246; (2003)1BOMLR748; [2002(94)FLR775]; 2002(3)MhLj434
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court rejecting the reference made for adjudication on the ground that the petitioner had already initiated proceedings under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.2. The petitioner was employed as a Turner with respondent No. 1 on 1-3-1982. On 2-10-1986, after holding an enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of certain acts of misconduct. On 10-10-1986, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Labour Commissioner informing him of his dismissal. On 19-12-1986, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Labour Court under Item 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU and PULP Act). While this complaint was pending, the petitioner sent a demand on 24-4-1987 to respondent No. 1 ...
In Re: Zee Interactive Multimedia Ltd.; in Re: Siti Cable Network Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR788; [2002]111CompCas733(Bom)
D.G. Karnik J.1. Zee Inter Active Media Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferor-company'), who is the petitioner in Company Petition No. 1096 of 2001 is proposed to be amalgamated with Siti Cable Network Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferee-company') under a scheme of arrangement proposed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. In Company Petition No. 1096 of 2001, the transferor-company seeks approval and sanction of the scheme.2. In Company Petition No. 1097 of 2001, the transferee-company seeks approval of the scheme of merger and amalgamation of the transferor-company into it.3. The transferor-company has a paid up capital of only Rs. 700 crores and it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the transferee-company. The transferor-company was incorporated on May 5, 2000, and certificate of commencement of business was granted to it on June 7, 2000. The transferor-company however had not commenced commercial operations till the end of the accounting y...
Transport Manager and anr. Vs. Vilas Sanu Deokar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR257; (2002)2BOMLR439; [2002(94)FLR772]; (2003)ILLJ59Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J. 1.These three petitions challenge the order of the Industrial Court whereby the petitioners were directed to pay subsistence allowance to the respondents, who were admittedly Badli workers, in accordance with Section 10-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The undisputed facts in these petitions are as follows: The respondents were 'Badli' workmen employed as drivers with the petitioners. Their names were maintained in the register of Badli-Hangami-Rozandari workmen. On account of certain acts of misconduct, they were charge-sheeted and an enquiry was instituted against them. While the enquiry was being conducted against the respondent-workmen, the petitioners did not give them any work and a 'no duty order' was issued to them. The workmen filed a complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 contending that issuance of 'no duty order' amounted to suspens...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »