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.
Surrendra Industries Ltd. Vs. A.L. Alaspurkar, Member Industrial Court ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR113; 2003(1)MhLj970
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner company is aggrieved by the order dated 8th February 1991 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 46 of 1983 filed by the respondent No. 2 employee, under Section 28 read with Section 30 and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and PULP Act, 1971 praying for a declaration that the respondents in the complaint had engaged in the unfair labour practice of failure to implement the award dated 31st December 1981 in Reference (IDA) No. 589 of 1976 and for a direction to desist from engaging in the unfair labour practice complained of. The reference was between the original employers, viz., Esskay Steel Rolling Mills and the workman Shri Mangli. The petitioner is the company which according to the workman is the successor in interest of the original employer and is liable to implement the award against the original employer. For the sake of convenience the parties will be hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner company' and the 'origi...
Dattatraya Pyurshottam Bhave Since Deceased Through His L.R. Pramila D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR963; 2003(4)BomCR469; 2003(3)MhLj161
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Judge, Thane dated 21-7-1984 in Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1981.2. The petitioner's predecessor was the landlord in respect of the premises known as Indira Sadan situated at Kharkar Ali, Thane. The suit premises are situated in the said building. The respondent No. 1 was inducted in the suit premises sometime in 1970. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 tenant shifted permanently to Badlapur and thereafter the defendant No. 2 started to occupy the suit premises. In the circumstances, suit for possession was filed by the petitioner against the respondents essentially on two grounds which will have to be considered in this petition. The first ground was that the petitioner No. 1 tenant has acquired suitable residence elsewhere and therefore, was liable to be evicted by invoking Section 13(1)(i) of the Bombay ...
Ghodawat Pan Masala Products (i) Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR466; [2003]130STC310(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. These petitions seek to challenge the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987 as amended by Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy and Amendment) Act, 2001, being Maharashtra Act No. 22 of 2001. The petitioners are carrying on business of manufacture and sale of pan masala containing tobacco (gutkha) and pan masala without tobacco. All the petitioners are registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('the BST Act', for short), Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('the CST Act', for short), Central Excise Act, 1944 ('the Excise Act', for short) and have also applied for registration under Maharashtra Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987 ('the Luxury Tax Act', for short). 2. The petitioners being aggrieved by levy of luxury tax at the rate of 25 per cent are challenging the validity of the amended provision of the Luxury Tax Act on the ground that the purported levy of tax is in effect and substance a tax on sales and not on luxuries and, therefore, it is a colourable le...
Ramesh A. Phatnani Vs. Kishor R. Madan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR245; 2003(1)BomCR805
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since both the petitions involve common question of law and facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.3. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.4. The petitioner challenges the orders dated 30-1-2002 passed by the trial Court below Ex. 26 in Special Civil Suit No. 149 of 1999 and under Exh. 28 in Special Civil Suit No. 150 of 1999. By the impugned order the trial Court has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner for amendment of written statement whereby the petitioner has sought to incorporate pleadings regarding objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Thane to entertain the suits on the ground that all the transactions between the parties had taken place within territorial limits of city of Mumbai.5. It is not in dispute that the suits were filed in January, 1999 and the written statements were filed by the petitioner in Septem...
Cit Vs. Asea Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN598(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.Both the above appeals raise common questions of law and, therefore, they were heard together on 7-8-2002.2. The questions of law framed by the department in the memo of appeal are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing investment allowance on technical know-how fees when as per the provisions of section 35AB, technical know-how fee is allowable as revenue expenditure in 6 yearly equal instalments2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the assessee's claim in respect of 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 debtor's account and the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) were not attracted?'3. For the ...
Shivaji and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR633; 2003(1)BomCR108; (2003)1BOMLR691; 2002(4)MhLj778
V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 4-1-1996 rejecting an application by the present applicants for substitution of their names as legal representatives of one Janglu, who was the original landholder of the land in question. 2. Facts not in dispute stated briefly are : That Revenue Case No. 22/A-65/78-79 was started by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagpur for acquiring certain lands for a public purpose. Certain lands belonging to Janglu s/o Bhagwan Wanjari were also acquired and an award was, therefore, made ultimately by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 30-10-1983. Notice of making the award was received by Janglu the original landholder on 2-11-1983. He, therefore, made an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act requiring making of a reference under that section as he was not satisfied by the amount of compensation awarded for the acquisition of his land. After this application under Section 18 was made,...
Chandrakant Babulal Panchal and anr. Vs. Ashwinibhai Mancharam Patel a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR305; 2003(1)BomCR37; 2003(1)MhLj191
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Admit. By consent, heard forthwith.2. The appellants challenge the order dated 23rd July, 2001, rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order DC, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court has rejected the said application solely on the ground that the application under Order IX, Rule 13 was not maintainable in view of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter Shaikh Chand Rahimbhai v. Annasaheb Trimbakrao Bobde reported in 2000 (3) ALL MR 417. Apparently, the Court below has not at all considered whether the appellant has made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay or not.3. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and on perusal of the record, following points arise for consideration :1. Whether the application for condonation of delay, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could have been disposed of merely holding that the applica...
Badrinarayan Bansilal Somani Vs. Vinodkumar K. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR1040; 2003(3)BomCR231; 2003(2)MhLj120
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 19th April, 2002 rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner. By way of amending the written statement the petitioner has sought to take additional ground of defence in the suit. The Court below has rejected the application on the ground that the proposed amendment is totally a new case.3. At the out set the learned Advocate for the respondent referring to the amended Rule 17 of Order VI has submitted that in the absence of the petitioner disclosing sufficient cause for delay in filing the application for amendment to the written statement, there is no case for interference in the impugned order and the petition should be dismissed in limine.4. By the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, the Rule 17 of Order VI has been amended whereby proviso is added to the original r...
Kantilal Parekh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(158)ELT678(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard rival contentions. Perused record.2. At the outset, Mr. R.V. Desai, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Respondents raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and adjudicate this petition on the ground that no cause of action, arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent relied upon the decision in case of Union of India v. Adani Exports Limited reported in : 2001(134)ELT596(SC) in support of his submission.3. This contention sought to be raised has not been raised in the return or counter affidavit filed before this Court as back as in the month of February, 1989. This objection is being raised for the first time during the course of oral submission when this petition is being heard finally.4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, in reply, took us through the contents of the petition as well as show cause notice and the averments made therein. He pointed out from Para 5 ...
Akaram S. Chaukekar Vs. Dalal Project Services Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR553
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner workman is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application Nos. 80 of 1998 and 90 of 1998 on 19th March, 1999 allowing the revision application filed by the respondent employer and dismissing the revision application of the petitioner workman. The Industrial Court had quashed and set aside an order of the Labour Court dated 6th July, 1998 in complaint U.L.P. No. 309 of 1994 and had disposed of the complaint filed by the workman.2. The parties had a number of rounds of litigation from the Labour Court to this Court. The skeleton of the dispute can be stated hereinafter. It appears that the petitioner who claimed to be in employment of the respondent company for a period of 17 years was charge-sheeted on 31st July, 1992 for certain acts of misconducts. It appears that there was a dispute between the company and the workman represented by the Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh over the charter of demands and the said d...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »