Mumbai Court August 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.
Khodadad Ardeshir Leader and ors. Vs. Sundhakar Anantram Shetty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR226
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Though the suit itself was disposed of by consent terms filed on 25-6-1993, the matter is pending before this Court on the claim by the defendant to the suit, that the applicants herein who had acquired the land and building and have reconstructed the building under the provisions of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, have to make available to them, an area admeasuring 176 sq. mtrs which is the area which according to defendants was taken possession of by the Court receiver.2. A few facts may be set out for the purpose of deciding the controversy. A suit came to be filed before this Court, by one Khodadad Ardeshir Leader and others as plaintiffs against the present defendant. That suit was filed some time in the year 1978. There were some disputes between the parties to the suit pursuant to which a Court receiver came to be appointed. There are several orders passed by this Court. The first such order is dated 29-7-1988. In this order the Court held ...
Rajabhau Mahadeorao Rahate Vs. Dinkar Shantaram Ingole
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR281
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This revision application raises a substantial question of law of large public importance regarding maintainability of a revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, after its amendment effective from 1st July, 2002. The question whether a revision application pending before this Court as of that day are liable to be decided in accordance with the amended provisions of section 115 or the amendments may not affect the pending revisions; what is the scope and extent of saving Clause in section 32 of the Amendment Act. These and analogous important questions occur with regularity in all cases that will come up for admission after 1st July, 2002. In my opinion, therefore, it is necessary that the view of this Court at least on the interpretation of these provisions, is taken and made known to all concerned.2. Generally, it could be necessary to decide the scope and extent of the provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to...
Corina Cota Vs. John Joseph Noronha and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR525
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this civil revision application, the petitioner/original decree-holder, is challenging the order dated 2nd December, 2000, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao, in an application under Order 21 Rules 97 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a declaration of nullity and staying of execution of decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 250/84/D. By the said order, the learned Judge had directed an enquiry to be held under section 8-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Protection From Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'aforesaid Act'). The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid order suffers from a patent illegality and errors are apparent on the face of the record and the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao, ought not to have entertained and granted such a relief in the said Execution Application No. 32/97/E, at all. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent No. 2 herein, ...
Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Through Its Chairman Vs. Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR657; 2003(1)BomCR789
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal forthwith.2. In these proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an Award of a sole arbitrator rendered on 8th April, 2002 is called into question. The respondent was the claimant in the arbitral proceedings and the claim before the arbitrator arose out of a reference which was made to arbitration, by consent in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The members of the respondent on whose behalf a reference was made to arbitration supplied ACSR Conductors to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board ('the Board'). Payments had admittedly been made by the Board though beyond the stipulated dates prescribed in the contracts that were entered into by the Board with individual suppliers. In accordance with the provisions of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industria...
Bhuvaraha Maithreyan, Through the Power of Attorney Holder, Dr. Tara M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR803
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith,2. The applicant challenges a common order dated 15.4.2002, passed by the Lower Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant against the common order dated 21,1.2002, dismissing the applications filed by the applicant.3. The applicant herein is the plaintiff in R.C. Suit No. 1352 of 2001 and the respondents are the defendants therein. The respondent No. 4 herein is the plaintiff in R.C. Suit No. 1851 of 2001 and the other respondents and the, applicant herein are the defendants therein. The applicant's suit is for a declaration that the construction carried out by the respondent No. 4 is illegal and for consequential relief In the nature of permanent injunction to restrain the respondent No. 4 from carrying on such construction as well as relief in relation to the sanction by the Municipal Authorities, issued on 3.7.2001, on the ground that the same...
Shri Vasant Narayan Damle Vs. the Honourable Chief Justice of the High ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR233
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner who was a District & Sessions Judge in the State of Maharashtra has challenged the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dismissing him from service on the ground that the misconduct alleged against him was duly proved before the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer and therefore this punishment was meted out.2. Facts giving rise to this Petition are that the petitioner while working as a District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur granted anticipatory bail to certain accused, some of them were Advocates of that Court, which according to the Department was a misconduct and therefore a charge-sheet was issued to him. The incident as alleged by the Department is that in the evening of 30th March, 1994 certain lawyers approached the Petitioner and requested him to take up for urgent orders an application for anticipatory bail, as it pertains to certain Advocates. Taking into consideration the fact that the Advocates w...
Cc Vs. Nu Mech. Corpn.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(105)LC783Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal from revenue was argued by Shri M.H. Shaikh, Shri Anil Balani appeared for the Respondents.2. The respondents had imported Brass Ash/Dross declaring the copper content to be 30% to 32%. The invoice specifying value of US$ 405 PMT did not specify any copper content. The sample of the goods was drawn and tested. The test report read as under: The sample is in the form of grey coloured heterogeneous mixture with coarse powder and lumps, both metallic and non metallic including metallic pieces with oxidised surfaces and extraneous matter. The metallic portion is composed of copper and zinc alloy (Brass), and a few pieces of copper, the non metallic portion being composed of metallic compounds, siliceous matter and dirt. Note: (1) It is not possible to separate the metal in a pure state by Mechanical sorting (2) Heating and refining processes are required to recover the Metal.3. In view of the high copper content the matter was adjudicated.During personal hearing the importe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Asea Ltd. (Now Known as Asea Brown Bove ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR727; (2002)178CTR(Bom)110; [2002]258ITR407(Bom)
S.P. Kapadia, J.1. Both the above appeals raise common questions of law and, therefore, they were heard together on August 7, 2002. 2. The questions of law framed by the Department in the memo of appeal are as follows : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowing investment allowance on technical know-how fees when as per the provisions of Section 35AB technical know-fee is allowable as revenue expenditure in six yearly equal instalments (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowing the assessee's claim in respect of the provision for bad and doubtful debts and interest thereon, even though the same was not written off and no debit was made to the profit and loss account and no credit to the debtors account and the provisions of Sectio...
Tushar Suresh Bhumkar Vs. Suresh and Company and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR12; (2003)2BOMLR223; 2002(4)MhLj845
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned advocates for the petitioner andrespondents 1 and 3. None present for respondents 2 and 4 to 8 though served. Notice was issued to respondents for final disposal of the matter at the admission stage. In spite of the notice being served, respondents 2 and 4 to 8 have remained absent, hence it is to be presumed that they are not interested in contesting the proceedings.2. Upon hearing learned advocates for the petitioner and respondents 1 and 3 and on perusal of the record it is seen that the suit filed by the plaintiff being S.C. Suit No. 264 of 1995 for recovery of amount, stated to have remained unpaid towards the goods sold to the petitioner-defendant, was decreed by decree dated 4-1-2001. Thereafter the plaintiff filed darkhast proceedings being Spl. Darkhast No. 20 of 2001 wherein the petitioner filed application under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure raising mainly two objections viz. that the decree hasbeen passed in the said suit with...
Alcon Resort Holdings Limited and anr. Vs. Dy. Collector and Sub-divis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR264; 2003(1)MhLj161
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In both the above petitions the basic challenge is with regard to levy of conversion fee under Section 32 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968. The learned counsel for the petitioners has basically challenged the levy of conversion fee on three grounds (a) the said conversion fee is totally arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, (b) the aforesaid levy though is termed as 'fee', the State construed the same to be a 'tax', that is to say a fee is levied in the guise of tax without rendering any service and (c) the State has no legislative competence to collect the aforesaid conversion fee by way of tax as the same was not permissible under Entry 45 or 49 of the concurrent list of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India, that is to say, that the State lacks legislative competence to levy this tax.2. In the above matters we have heard the learned counsel only on the first iss...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »