Mumbai Court April 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.
Ramchandra Gulabrai Soneji and ors. Vs. Mahomedbhai Kaderbhai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR405
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The original petitioner M/s. Ramson has been represented initially by Shri Ramchandra Gulabrai Soneji and thereafter after his death by his legal representatives, namely, Geeta Ramchandra Soneji, Haresh Ramchandra Soneji, Chandra Ramchandra Soneji and Sadhana Ramchandra Soneji. They are assailing the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Joint Judge of the Court of Small Causes in Ejectment Application No. 84/E of 1975 so also the judgment and order dated 7-12-83 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes in Appeal No. 548 of 1982. The order passed by the Additional Joint Judge of the Court of Small Causes is Annexure H annexed to the petition. They further pray that the Ejectment Application No. 84/E of 1975 filed by Mahomedbhai Kaderbhai and other 8 persons be dismissed.2. The premises in question, the shop No. 2 stood situated at 590 Pipe Road, Hanifabai Chawl, Kurla West, Bombay where one Kaderbhai Adamji, who averred that he was the ...
Rameshwar Vidhyram Agrawal Vs. R.i. Borade and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)788; (2002)104BOMLR774
V.K. Barde, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sillod, in Summary Case No. 107 of 1990. The present Appellant filed the complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate. He alleged that he was the owner of Hotel Naresh located at Sillod abutting Jalgaon - Aurangabad Highway, while the accused, present Respondent No. 1 is the publisher of the Fortnightly Newspaper Suraksha Sandesh. In the issue dated 16.2.1990, the accused published a news item on the first page of the issue and that caused defamation of the complainant and, therefore, the complaint for offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code was filed.2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after recording the evidence of the complainant and his witness and after examining the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to prove his case and, therefo...
Ramdhari Devnarayan Mishra Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)215; 2002CriLJ3902
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri Jha has divided his submissions on three divisions, (1) the allegations made by the complainant are of civil nature and, therefore, this is a matter pertaining to the domain of jurisdiction of Civil Court; (2) no ingredients of criminal offence has been indicated in the complaint made by the complainant; (3) the applicant has given a flat to complainant to reside and, therefore, there is no whisper of commission of criminal offence, leave aside the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 420 of IPC. He pointed out that these points have been dealt with by number of judgments of various High Courts and Supreme Court. He prayed for direction in the nature of anticipatory bail to the applicant.2. Shri Konde Deshmukh for the prosecution submitted that the act of giving a flat to the complainant which is situated in an unauthorised zone of the building itself shows the credibility of the appellant. Shri Konde Deshmukh submitted that a case of offence p...
B.M. Power Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT72Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The common question for consideration in each of the appeals is whether each of the appellants was entitled to receive the refund of excise duty which it paid in excess, which was granted to it and subsequently recovered from it on the ground that such refund amounted to unjust enrichment.2. The refund in each cases were sanctioned, the notice issued for its recovery issued orders confirming wrong payment passed, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming that order passed before May, 1994, when Section 11B of the Act was incorporated in sub-section (2), doctrine of unjust enrichment would apply. However, in dealing with the refund, we are bound to give effect to the provisions of the amended section. Therefore, even though it could not legally have been raised when proceedings were going on, the question whether the incidence of duty has been passed is required to be answered. Counsel for the appellant answers it by saying that it has not been passed on because the pri...
Eastern Traders Corporation Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC1069Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the finding of the Asst. Commissioner, that the metal measuring tape that the appellant imported were consumer goods, and in the absence of licence required for their clearance ordering their confiscation with an option to on payment of fine.2. Counsel for the appellant does not seek to question the finding of the consumer goods. He relies upon a clarification dated 15.5.1992 issued by the Dy. Chief Controller of Import and Exports, Delhi. This clarification issued in terms of the Export and Import Policy 1992-97 provides as follows in the second paragraph. It is hereby clarified that as per Export and Import Policy, 1992-97, the items allowed earlier under OGL or against scrips are allowed to be imported freely without a licence. Licence is required only in respect of specified items included in the Negative List of Imports incorporated in the Export and Import Policy, 1992-97. Hence the items not included in...
Adi Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT379Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Adi Enterprises (Appeal 3226/01) is a job worker for Johnson & Johnson (Appeal 3227). Johnson & Johnson is a manufacturer of various cosmetics and similar products such as baby soap, baby oil, baby powder, baby shampoo etc. In terms of a contract entered into between Johnson & Johnson and Adi Enterprises, the latter packed into boxes or sets various products that Johnson & Johnson manufactured. This, for example, the carton gift box contained 100 gm baby powder, 25 gm of baby cream, one cake of baby soap, one bib and booklet; a shrink gift box contained a jar of baby powder, a cake of soap, baby brush and a baby comb. All these sets were packed securely with the base of tray made of high impact polystyrene. Duty had been discharged on each of these items that comprised these boxes. The primary question for consideration in this appeal is whether by being packed in the manner which we have described, and sold there has emerged a new and distinct excisable duty, which...
Vinodchandra H. Doshi and anr. Vs. Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom335; 2002(3)ALLMR334; 2002(4)BomCR438; (2002)3BOMLR900; 2002(2)MhLj898
R.J. Kochar, J.1. Affluent have tremendous capacity to litigate even for a frivolous point. They have a great ability to occupy very large part of valuable time of the Courts, The present is one of such litigating activity carried on by the members of one and the same family. The present feud is between three uncles on one side and five nephews on the other. It has shocked me when I perused the proceedings to note the subject matter of the group of the present petitions. It is over the small office or post in the managing committee of the cooperative society which is wholly occupied by the aforesaid uncles and the nephews and nobody else. There appear to be nine members of the society and they being blood relations, they are not able to see eye to eye. My efforts to resolve the controversy with the help of both the learned Counsel proved to be a shocking failure on account of an uncompromising and adamant attitude on both the sides of the parties. The counsel of course were helpless.2....
Rajendra Kantilal Dalal Vs. Bombay Builders Co. (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom408; 2002(3)ALLMR10; 2002(5)BomCR102; (2002)4BOMLR480; 2002(4)MhLj141
ORDERS.A. Bobde, J.1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the plaintiff for an amendment to the plaint according to the Schedule. Mainly by the proposed amendment the plaintiff seeks to incorporate averments to the effect that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that specific performance cannot or ought not to be granted, in addition to the refund of the sum of Rs. 1,92,000/-, the Plaintiff seeks damages and/or compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,46,000/- from the 1st and 2nd defendants. This proposed amendment for damages and/or compensation is strongly opposed by defendant No. 2 who has purchased the property from the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3.2. Firstly, Mr. Ketan Parikh, learned Counsel for the defendant No. 2 submitted that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation since it introduces a pleading of specific performance against the defendant No. 2 and compensation in lieu thereof for the first time.3. This takes us directly for a consideration of the question whether Section ...
Miss Meenal D/O Pandurang MaraThe Vs. North Maharashtra University Thr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR140
D.C. Karnik, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. Heard the learned Advocates for respective parties.3. Miss Meenal Pandurang Marathe, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4657/01 and Miss. Ashwini Pandurang Jagtap, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4658/01 are the real sisters and are related to one Mr. D. V. Patil who is the Chairman of the Society which runs Gangamai College of Engineering. Meenal, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4657/01, appeared for second year examination in Engineering held by the respondent No. -University in April-May, 2000. Ashwini, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4658/01, appeared for first year Engineering examination held by the respondent No. 1 - University in April-May, 2000. Both of them were initially declared as having passed the respective examinations. Subsequently, a complaint was received by the respondent No. 1. University purporting signed by the staff members of the respondent No. 3 - College in which it was alleged ...
Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal Vs. Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati, Bhatakya J ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR95; (2002)3BOMLR281; 2002(3)MhLj659
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. While hearing Writ Petition No. 526 of 2002, the learned Single Judge (Coram : A. B. Naik, J.) by referring to the earlier two decisions rendered by two different Division Benches of this Court observed that both the decisions were at variance with each other on the same point and therefore, on 7-2-2002 he passed an order of reference under Rule 7 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, for placing the matter before His Lordship The Chief Justice for his considerations to refer the issues to a Bench of two Judges.2. At the first instance, Writ Petition No. 526 of 2002 came to be placed before the Division Bench consisting of C.K. Thakker, C.J. and B.H. Marlapalle, J. By order dated 15-3-2002, the said Division Bench directed the matter to be placed before a Full Bench.3. Writ Petition No. 1573 of 1999 was also placed along with Writ Petition No. 526 of 2002 before the Full Bench as admittedly the same issues in controversy are also involv...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »