Mumbai Court March 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.
Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Prime Displays (P) Ltd.,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR248; 2002(5)BomCR158; [2003]114CompCas141(Bom)
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The parties are agreed that the facts and law involved in these three company applications are identical and hence all these applications can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. The facts that are material and relevant for the purpose of deciding these applications are as under :2.1 Prime Displays (P) Ltd., Everest Media Ltd. and Abiz Business (P) Ltd. have filed company petitions against Larsen & Toubro Ltd, for winding up of the Larsen & Toubro Ltd., which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. have taken out these company applications.2.2 In this order, Larsen & Toubro Ltd. is referred to as the applicant and the companies which have filed these company petitions are referred to as the respondents.3. The applicant has entered into contracts with the respondents, which are called'hoarding contracts'. Pursuant to the terms of these contracts, the respondents in them...
Bapulal Walchand Jain, (Since Deceased by L.Rs.) and ors. Vs. Panduran ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom5; 2002(3)ALLMR412
ORDERJ.C. Chitre, J.1. This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order which has been passed by executing Court (4th Jt. Civil Judge, S. D., Pune) dated 29-9-1987, by which the learned Judge recorded the payment of Rs. 2002.50 as payment made by respondent, judgment-debtor to the present petitioner (D.H.) by placing reliance on the balance sheet of the present petitioner which shows the amount of Rs. 2002.50 as payable by the respondent to him as on 30th of November 1983.2. A decree was put to execution. Some amount was paid by the respondent to the petitioner and there was balance of Rupees 5260.20 recoverable by the petitioner from the respondent. The petitioner filed Darkhast for recovery of that amount. The respondent took the defence that he had paid the amount out of Court to the petitioner and only amount of Rs. 2002.50 were remaining to be paid. In view of the said contention the executing Court called the balance sheet from the Income-tax Department...
Amy Phirozshah Mistry and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom399; 2002(2)ALLMR673; 2002(4)BomCR90; 2002(4)MhLj690
ORDER1. This petition arises from the judgment and order dated 31st October, 1988, passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, in Misc. Appeal No. 109 of 1984 filed under Section 105F of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1883 (for short, 'the BMC Act'), by which the petitioners' appeal has been dismissed. The order of eviction under Section 105B of the BMC Act was impugned in the said appeal. The property involved is plot No. 48 of Carnage Lines Estate, admeasuring 327.54 sq. yards, bearing C.S. No. 1835 of Fort Division, Mumbai (for short, 'the said plot'). Though the petitioners have made diverse prayers in the writ petition, the prayer (a) alone was pressed concerning the order of eviction passed by respondent No. 5 under Section 105B of the B.M.C. Act. According to the petitioners, the said plot has remained and continued in their possession and it did not ever vest in the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (for short, 'the Corporation') as contemplated under ...
Umesh Marotrao Mowade and ors. Vs. Bhalchandra Jageshwar Joshi and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR515
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. These four review petitions are directed against our judgment dated 30th January, 2002 whereby we accepted the report submitted by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur. In order to fully appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the review applicants it will be necessary to note the past history of this litigation. 2. The writ petition was filed in public interest by the petitioner Bhalchandra Joshi alleging severe irregularities, possible corruption and violation of Recruitment Rules. In the matter of recruitment several categories in the employment of Municipal Corporation, Nagpur it was alleged that several Corporators are involved in malpractices and have used their offices to secure employment to the persons of their choice by-passing Recruitment Rules framed in that behalf. Rule was therefore issued and replies in detail from the contesting respondents were received. The contesting respondents included some of the Corporator as also ex-Mayor of the city of...
Punyakar Rajaram Gajbhiye Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR450
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Shah for the accused/appellant and learned A.P.P., for the State/Respondent.2. In Special Case No. 11 of 1990 two accused were prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused No. 1 was working as a Sub-Engineer in M.S.E.B. He was convicted. He filed appeal to this Court and the same was decided by me and he was acquitted. This appeal is filed by the original accused No. 2 [who is referred to appellant hereinafter]. He is also convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and taking bribe and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 100/ in default R.I. for one month under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) read With Section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 100/ in default R.I. for one month.3. At the relevant time appellant/accused No. 2 was working as Meter Tester in the M.S.E.B. The complainant in this case was one Shiva...
Rahul Associates Vs. Commissioner of Customs,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT126Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The facts leading to this appeal are that M/s. Rahul Associates had cleared electronic components parts vide Bill of Entry No. 133950 on payment of appropriate duties of customs. These were stored in their premises. The officers of the Customs Preventive Collectorate investigated the importation. Statements of Shri Bhansali, proprietor of the importer were recorded. The first statement was exculpatory. In the second statement reference was made to some e-mail messages citing certain e-mail IDs which apparently showed greater values for the goods imported. These statements were later retracted immediately. But nearly after a month a general statement was made by Shri Bhansali confirming all his earlier statements.2. Show cause notice was issued alleging under-invoicing. Apart from the citations of the e-mail messages certain contemporaneous imports made in other Ports of the same items were also relied upon to establish under-valuation. In reply to the show cause notice the grievanc...
Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Vs. Cce and C
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT693Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides on the application for early hearing, we find that the issue being simple, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing, we do so.2. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned refund of Rs. 43,29,131/-vide Order-in-Original No. DIV. BRH/R/34/99, dated 21-9-1999 holding as below :- "I sanction the refund claim of Rs. 43,29,131/- and appropriate the sanctioned amount of Rs. 43,29,131/- against the Central Excise duty of Rs. 77,56,531.00 confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. D/25/BRH/98-99, dated 30-11-98." This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal.3. Shri Mayur Shroff shows us Tribunal Order No.C-II/29/85-88/2001/WZB, dated 30-10-2001, vide which the Order-in-Appeal No. Commr. (A)/624/VDR/2000, dated 24-7-2000 which upheld the Order-in-Original dated 30-11-98 was set aside and the proceedings were remanded for de novo consideration. It is his case that the demand against which the refund was adjusted, is leg...
Rita T. Verghese Vs. Headmistress, Vidya Mandir English Primary School ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR851; 2002(4)BomCR102; [2002(94)FLR892]; 2002(3)MhLj57
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The petitioner, through this Writ Petition, challenges the orders dated 31-1-1985 (Ex. B) and 1-2-1986 (Ex. D) whereby her services as Assistant Teacher were discontinued. The petitioner has also prayed for direction to respondents to reabsorb her on the same post with similar benefits and continuity of service with effect from 30-4-1985. The petitioner has further prayed that the Government Notification, Education and Employment Department No. PST. 1087/18/SE-3-Cell dated 4-1-1988 (Ex. H) be struck down as ultra vires to the extent it makes the amendment to Rule 2(1)(b) retrospective only from 7-8-1987 and not from 16-7-1987. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Vidya Mandir English Primary School, Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli (East), Bombay-400 083, (respondent No. 1) with effect from 13-6-1983. The appointment letter describes the vacancy as purely temporary. The petitioner claims to have continued to work upto 12-6-1985 continuously. However, by l...
Manik S/O Rambhau Pachghare Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parisha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR505; 2002(4)BomCR491; (2002)IIILLJ773Bom
R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner was working as co-ordinator in Zilla Parishad, Amravati. He was on leave from January 3, 1983 to February 1, 1983, but was recalled on duty vide letter dated January 11, 1983. Thereafter he was deputed to bring an amount of Rs. 10,000/-from the office of the District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati. The petitioner collected the said amount and, according to the petitioner, while he was at the bus stop the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- was stolen by miscreants. The petitioner reported the matter to the control room at the bus station. Later he reported the matter to the Administrative Officer, District Health Office, Amravati. A police complaint was lodged. Investigation carried out by it did not make any headway either in tracing the thief or recovery of the said amount of Rs. 10,000/-. A departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner for negligence in performing his duty with reference to the said sum of Rs. 10,000. The Enquiry Office...
Bhiku Hari More (Deceased by L.Rs.) and ors. Vs. Vishvanath Shridhar M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom235
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The appellants are assailing the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Thane in Civil Appeal No. 146/1987 by which the learned Judge confirmed the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, J.D., Palghar in the matter of R.C.S. No. 55/1978.2. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law.(1) Whether the Courts below should have granted the facility of paying the arrears of rent during the trial to the appellants in view of provisions of Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act?3. Shri Ghaisas, Counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that at the time of trial when the appellant was ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent, and said readiness and willingness was pointed out in written statement, the two Courts below should have exercised the discretion in favour of the appellant. Shri Shah submitted that the words which are used in Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act shows that discretion lies with the Court ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »