Mumbai Court July 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.
Husainali Haji Esmail Badaksha Vs. Radhe Shyam Co-operative Housing So ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR1012; (2003)105BOMLR298
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court dated August 17, 1990 in Appeal No. 119 of 1988. The petitioner claims to be in possession of portion of premises bearing Flat No. 12 in Geetanjali near Radio Club. Colaba, Mumbai 400 005. According to the petitioner, he was put in possession of that portion of the premises by one Mr. Punwani who was the member of the respondent society and was allottee of that flat. It Is not in dispute that the respondent society is a Tenant Co-operative Housing Society, of which said Punwani was the member. It was noticed by the respondent society that the occupation of the portion of the suit flat by the petitioner was a source of nuisance to the neighbours and also that the petitioner was inducted without obtaining prior permission of the society; therefore, the society by notice dated January 4, 1972 called upon its membe...
Betts India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT148Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for discharge arid return of the bank guarantee furnished by the applicant in support of the provisional assessment bond. Now that the appeal has been decided in its favour, we do not see the justification for the department not to return the bank guarantee.The Commissioner's stand communicated to the applicant that he is "contemplating" filing an appeal against the Tribunal's order cannot be a ground for not accepting the order. Unless operation of the Tribunal's order is stayed it will have to be given effect to. The Commissioner is therefore directed to return the bank guarantee forthwith....
Sphere Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(108)LC744Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Appellants filed this appeal against Adjudication Order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise. The Adjudicating Authority held that the Appellants are not entitled for the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification No. 175/86-CE.3. The Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of two specified goods and were availing of the benefit of Small Scale exemption notification No. 175/86-CE. On crossing the clearance of 15 lakhs in respect of one specified goods the Appellants started paying duty and in respect of other specified goods the Appellants were availing the benefit of Small Scale exemption notification as they had not crossed the limit of 15 lakhs as provided under the notification. The demand was confirmed on the ground that the moment the limit of 15 lakhs was crossed in respect of one specified goods the Appellants are not entitled for exemption in respect of other specified goods though they had not reached up to the exemption limit of 15 lakhs.4. We ob...
Maritime Association of Ship Owners Ship Managers and Agents Vs. Macki ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR406; 2002(5)BomCR14; (2002)4BOMLR442; 2002(4)MhLj461
D.G. Karnik, J. 1. Yesterday, a praecipe was filed before me by Mr. O. P. Soni, Advocate accompanied by a draft Judge's Order and an affidavit dated 8-7-2002 sworn in by Captain A. P. Kothurkar, Secretary of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant then requested me to pass an order in terms of the draft Judge's Order and requested me to sign the Judge's Order tendered to me. 2. In the last few days, since I took up this assignment, many such requests were made for passing of orders in terms of Judge's Order, almost all of which I had declined to grant. Since repeated requests are made, I am passing this speaking order in this matter after having heard all the appearing counsels in several matters which were listed today under the caption 'Judge's Order'. Learned counsel stated that the phrase 'Judge's Order' is not used anywhere in the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules (for short 'the Rules') except in Form No. 109. Form No. 109 is regarding Letters of Administration whi...
Lokmat Newspapers Limited Vs. Commissioner of Labour, State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR36]; (2003)ILLJ767Bom; 2003(1)MhLj103
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jichkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1, and Shri Thakur, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.2. In the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 6-2-2001 passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby respondent No. 1 has reviewed its earlier order dated 27-5-1999 and exercised power under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act and made a reference of the issue of classification and re-classification of the petitioner to the Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur.3. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, states that Maratin Edition of Lokmat newspaper commenced its publication in the year 1971 from Nagpur. Thereafter Jalgaon Edition of Lokmat Maratindaily commenced its publication in the year 1977. The third edition of Lokmat Maratindaily commenced its publication from Nasik in the ye...
Jaibunbi Gulambeg and anr. Vs. Kamal Prabhakar Renge and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC484; 2004ACJ364; 2002(4)ALLMR779; 2003(1)BomCR686
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The first appellant is the mother while the second appellant, who is a minor is the brother of one Nazirbeg, who died in an accident on 6th December, 1997. The deceased was employed as a driver with the first respondent on a monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/-. An accident took place at midnight, between the night of 6th and 7th December, 1997 when the deceased was proceeding from Aurangabad to Nagpur in a motor vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-31/5869. The accident took place at village Undri within the jurisdiction of the Police Station of Amdapur in the District of Buldana. The vehicle which was being driven by the deceased is stated to have turned turtle, as a result of which, the driver sustained head injuries which resulted in death. The deceased was 25 years of age when he expired.2. A claim for compensation in the total amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. An appli...
Smt. Jaibun Bi and anr. Vs. Smt. Kamal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC474
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The first appellant is the mother while the second appellant, who is a minor is the brother of one Nazir Beg, who died in an accident on 6th December, 1997. The deceased was employed as a driver with the first respondent on a monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/-. An accident took place at midnight, between the night of 6th and 7th December, 1997 when the deceased was proceeding from Aurangabad to Nagpur in a motor vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-31/5869. The accident took place at village Undri within the jurisdiction of the Police Station of Amdapur in the District of Buldana. The vehicle which was being driven by the deceased is stated to have turned turtle, as a result of which, the driver sustained head injuries which resulted in death. The deceased was 25 years of age when he expired.2. A claim for compensation in the total amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. An ...
Ramdas Dhondibhu Pokharkar Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR76
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. On oral motion by the learned Advocate for the applicant, the respondent No. 2 is allowed to be detailed.2. Heard Advocates for the parties.3. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing.4. The applicant challenges the order dated 22.1.2002, passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application filed by the applicant for issuance of summons to the Branch Manager of the respondent/plaintiff-Bank by name Laxman.5. It is the contention of the applicant that a letter under the signature of Laxman, issued by the respondent-Bank, forms a very relevant documents for defence of the applicant in the suit filed by the Bank. When the witness on behalf of the respondent-Bank was corss-examined, he expressed his inability to identify the signature of Laxman on the said letter and, therefore, in the course of recording of the evidence on behalf of the applicant/defendant, the Trial Court was requested for issuance of summons to the said Laxman...
Hari Shankar Singhania and ors. Vs. Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR548; (2003)1BOMLR764; 2002(4)MhLj938
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard Mr. Madon for the plaintiff, Mr. Kadam for defendant Nos. 1 to 9 and Mr. Shah for defendant Nos. 10 to 17. The defendants oppose the chamber summons on the ground namely that the case made by means of amendment is such that it would have been barred by limitation if the suit was instituted on the date of the application for amendment.2. In Jai Jai Ram Manoharlal v. National Building Material Supply reported in : [1970]1SCR22 while allowing the amendment, the Apex Court observed thus :'Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, neglig...
Nirav Deepak Jobanputra Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR309; 2002(5)BomCR596; (2002)4BOMLR806; 2002(4)MhLj125
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard Mr. Thorat and Mr. Vashi the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Special Counsel Mr. Kumbhakhoni withMs. Geetanjali Prabhu, Ms. Manjiri Shah and Ms. A. Kalyanram the learned A. G. Ps. for the respondents.2. All the above petitions raise the same points of law and the facts are also similar. In view thereof we are disposing of all the above writ petitions by this common judgment and order.3. Rule in all the above petitions.4. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. The learned counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent taken up for final hearing forthwith.5. In the first group of petitions, Mr. Thorat is representing the petitioners wherein the relief sought is that this court should direct respondent no. 2 Director of Medical Education and Research to provide the petitioners forthwith the question paper of Common Entrance Test held in the academic year 2002-03 with the further directions to correct the marks of the petitioners after as...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »