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.
Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Collector of Customs, M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR225; 2002(5)BomCR2; 2003(162)ELT88(Bom); 2002(4)MhLj242
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners challenge the order-in-original dated 29th November, 1986 issued on 22nd September, 1987 (Exhibit 'J' to the petition), wherein penalty of Rs. 6,25,772.96 ps. has been levied by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Collector of Customs under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The facts bearing the subject matter in the present petition are as follows: The petitioners are a company carrying on business as Agents for foreign flag vessels calling at the Port of Bombay. At the material time, the petitioners were Agents of the foreign flag vessel 'PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'. The said vessel called at Bombay in or about the second week of August, 1979 with general cargo in containers, full container load (F.C.L. containers) as well as less than the container load (LCL container) for discharge at Bombay. On arrival of the said vessel, the petitioners had to file necessary Import General Manifest (IGM) and the vessel commenced discharging her c...
Dasharath Nana Ghuge and anr. Vs. Deoram Pandurang Watpade Since Decea ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR226; 2003(1)BomCR599; (2002)4BOMLR281; 2002(4)MhLj447
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 Revenue Tribunal, dated 27th September 1984 in No. TEN-A-130 of 1982. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether provisions of Section 33C(1) or 33C(3) and (4) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) will apply to the facts of the present case. If it is held that the provisions of Section 33C(1) of the Act would apply, then the view taken by the Tribunal will not variant any interference. On the other hand, if it is held that the provisions of Section 33C(3) and (4) would apply to the facts of the present case then the view taken by the Tribunal will have to be interfered. 2. Insofar as the purport of Section 33B and 33C are concerned, the same is no more res integra. At least two decisions have been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the re...
Government of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Khot and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR67; 2003(1)MhLj235
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner-State has approached this Court challenging the order dated 9-12-1982 passed by the then Collector, Nagpur acting as an appellate authority in Urban Land Ceiling Appeal No. 37 1982-83 whereby the Collector had declared that the present respondent held no surplus land so as to invoke the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976. The State also has in the same petitioner challenged the order dated 22-9-1982 passed by the same authority in that appeal, whereby the delay which had occurred in filing the appeal, was condoned by the said authority. The facts relevant and necessary for the purpose of the present decision in nutshell are as under: 2. In pursuance of the Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the purpose of brevity) the present respondent filed his return showing the following lands:1)Ambazari - NagpurCity SurveyArea 12,000sq.ft. 88i.e.1114.65sq.meter2)Jaripa...
National Leathercloth Manufacturing Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2003LC403(Bombay); 2003(156)ELT654(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Based upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bombay Tyre International v. Union of India reported in : 1990ECR298(Bombay) , the Petitioners had filed the present petition in the year 1981, inter alia, challenging the constitutional validity of new Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and also the orders passed by their Excise authorities declining to exclude certain expenses claimed as post-manufacturing expenses from the assessable value while approving the classification list of the petitioners. The petitioners have claimed refund of Excise duty amounting to Rs. 40,18,805.60 ps. with 18% interest in respect of the goods cleared by them during the period from 12th November, 1977 to 12th November, 1980, on the ground that certain post-manufacturing expenses have been erroneously included in the assessable value and excise duty has been erroneously paid by them.2. During the pendency of the petition the Respondents were directed by this Court ...
Pramod Alias Balya S/O Vithal Shendre Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)415; 2003CriLJ1171
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant had been tried and held guilty for the murder of Sanjay Jagannath Khobragade under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution in all examined seven witnesses in support of the said charge, out of which, four prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case, three of the said witnesses are panchas and one of them namely, P.W. 1 Ganesh Dadarao Kamble was an eye-witness. The trial Court, however, has accepted the evidence of P.W. 2 Dr. Arvind Nilkanthrao Bhure, P.W. 6 Usha Vishwanath Ramteke and P.W. 7 Gangaprasad Sarjuprasad, Gautam.2. The prosecution case mainly rests on the dying declaration recorded by P.W. 7 Gangaprasad Sarjuprasad Gautam in the presence of P.W. 2 Dr. Arvind Nilkanthrao Bhure, as also oral dying declaration made to P.W. 6 Usha Vishwanath Ramteke,3. The case of the appellant is that before the date of the incident there was quarrel between him and Sanjay Khobragade when he had come to his house and abused his sister ...
Bablya Alias Ramesh Shankar Yarpude Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)174; 2003CriLJ731
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellant/accused was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of one Pramod Bhimrao Atkar on 15-9-1995 and the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, vide its Judgment and Order dt. 2-4-1997 passed in Sessions Trial No. 500/95, convicted the accused appellant herein under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one year. The appellant/accused is challenging the said judgment and order in this appeal.2. FACTS :It is the prosecution case that on 15-9-1995 the appellant and deceased Pramod had gone to Mominpura Basti. The accused told the deceased that they would demand an amount of Rs. 1000/- from Sagirbhai Sharif Khan and if he did not pay the amount, he would beat him. Deceased Pramod did not like that idea and told the accused that it would not be proper to beat Sagirbhai especially when he always helped them. It...
islamic Republic of Iran Vs. M.V. Mehrab and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom517; (2002)4BOMLR785; 2002(4)MhLj584
A.P. Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of Deshmukh J. by which he dismissed the Notice of Motion moved by the plaintiffs for arrest of the ship M.V. Mehrab to provide security for payment of an award which they may obtain in arbitration proceedings instituted in London. The learned Judge was of the opinion that a suit of this nature to arrest a ship in order to force security for a future arbitration award is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M.V. Elizabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., : [1992]1SCR1003 .2. The matter arises as follows. The plaintiffs were the owners of cargo shipped on the second defendant's vessel M.V BRAVO under charter party dated 19th June 2000. The vessel M. V. BRAVO loaded cargo at the nominated load port. The second defendant and the said vessel M.V. BRAVO were unable to fulfill the voyage as a result of which the plaintiffs had to discharge the cargo and have It transhipped on another vess...
Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Abhay Raj JaIn and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR1036]; 2002(4)MhLj426
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner is a multinational company having its establishments all over the country. Its registered office is situated in Mumbai. It has also its manufacturing activities at Mumbai. It is a very largeorganization employing a large number of employees not only at Mumbai but at its various branches or units or undertakings all over India. It has a very large cadre of medical representatives, scattered all over the country. The entire net work all over the country is fully controlled by the petitioners head office at Mumbai. All the decisions are taken from the head office. It is the head office that decides the matters in respect of service conditions of the employees employed all over the country. From appointment orders to termination orders, every such order is passed by and originated in the Head office in Mumbai. Every order of transfer of the employees employed and posted all over the country is passed from the head office at Mumbai. The Head Office of the p...
Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited and ors. Vs. Ramesh Kamble ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR970]; 2003(1)MhLj178
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides. Rule. By consent the petition is disposed of finally.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 30th March 2002 and 24th June 2002 passed by the 4th Labour Court, Mumbai and the President, Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai in Misc. Criminal Complaint ULP No. 27 of 2002 and Revision Application ULP No. 87 of 2002 respectively. The petitioners have challenged the issuance of the process under Section 48(1) of the M.R.T.U. and PULP Act, 1971 in the aforesaid criminal complaint filed by the respondent No. 1, an employee of the petitioners. The petitioners had challenged the issuance of the process against the petitioners who were accused in the said complaint and, therefore, they filed the aforesaid revision application under Section 44 of the Act. The learned President, Industrial Court, after hearing the parties dismissed the revision by an exhaustive judgment which is impugned in the present petiti...
Maganlal Harilal Doshi and ors. Vs. Sarvadaman Mansukhlal Doshi and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR403; 2003(1)BomCR241; (2003)1BOMLR752; 2003(1)MhLj390
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard Mr. Khambatta for the plaintiffs and Mr. Doctor for defendant Nos. 1 to 23 and 39. The defendant Nos. 25 to 38, though served are absent. An Affidavit of service is filed on record. As the defendant No. 24 has died prior to the filing of the Chamber Summons, the plaintiffs seek leave to delete the name of defendant No. 24 from the Chamber Summons. Leave granted.2. The plaintiff Nos. 1 to 11 and the defendants are lineal descendants of one Shri Harilal Doshi. They had formed a Company known as 'Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd' which is the plaintiff No. 12 herein. The family members were carrying on business through the said company. In the year 1983 or thereabout, Mansukhlal Harilal Doshi (original defendant No. 24) and his branch separated from the family. A new Company by name Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. (defendant No. 39 herein) was formed. Certain assets of plaintiff No. 12 Company were agreed to be transferred to the defendant No. 39 company under the control of M...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »