Mumbai Court September 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.
Premium Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(153)ELT513(Bom)
A.P. Shah, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties petitions are taken up for final hearing.2. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution seek to challenge the order dated 6-4-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai directing attachment of the premises bearing Nos. 6/1 and 6/2 situated at Lloyds Garden, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, purchased in the name of M/s. Premium Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. and Vinita Lakhotia respectively towards pending recovery of Government dues from M/s. Om Traders, M/s. Tropical Exotics and M/s. Prime Agricom under Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (c) of Section 142(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs (Attachment of Properties of Defaulters for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995. Writ Petition No. 1394 of 2002 is filed by M/s. Premium Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Vinita Lakhotia. Writ Petition No. 1395 of 2002 is filed by Vinita Lakhotia in her individual capacity.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case ...
Head Mistress (Ms. P. D'Souza), Fatimadevi English High School and 2 O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ619Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith in view of the nature of the Petitions which are being disposed of at this stage itself.2. The Petitioners, the Head Mistress of Fatimadevi English High School and the Trustees and the Secretary of Lucy Education Society, are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Appeals filed by the respondent-Teachers against the Order dated December 29, 2000 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Act.3. The respondent-Teachers having put in total service of 39 years, 38 years and 34 years respectively in the School, stood superannuated on May 5, 1997, January 31, 1998 and September 20, 1999 respectively. According to them, they were entitled to get gratuity but on failure of the Petitioners to pay they approached the Controlling Authority for the purpose of getting gratuity. It appears that the Con...
indamer Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pricy D'Souza (Ms.) and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ16Bom
1. Heard Mr. Cama for the appellants. Mr. Singh appears for the Respondents.2. We have perused the order passed by the learned single Judge and we are not inclined to interfere therewith. All that the learned single Judge has done is stayed the transfers and directed the Industrial Court to hear the complaint expeditiously. The order was passed considering the fact that the first respondent is a lady employee (steno-receptionist) the second respondent a technician and third respondent is a carpenter and are employees drawing low scales of pay. They were sought to be transferred to Delhi though the power to effect the transfer is disputed. The complaint is pending in the Industrial Court and this is an interim arrangement. In view of the persuasion by Mr. Cama, we direct the Industrial Court to endeavour to decide the complaint by the end of March 2003.3. We clarify further that the Industrial Court will decide the complaint on the merits of submissions and evidence before it. The obser...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vijay Gangadhar Gatte ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR462; [2003(97)FLR984]
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 12-11-1998, passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, whereby the Industrial Court has remanded the matter to the First Labour Court, Nagpur for the purposes of proving the earlier past record of the respondent No. 1/employee, as relevant to determine the quantum of punishment imposed against the employee. 3. The respondent No. 1/employee appears to have dismissed from service of the petitioner-Corporation on the ground of selling re-issued tickets. There is no dispute that this is a major misconduct on the part of the respondent No. 1/employee. The Labour Court upheld the findings of the Enquiry Officer. In revision, preferred by the respondent/employee, the Industrial Court has entirely confirmed the order of the Labour Court and held that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court are well reasoned and there is no perversity at all in arriving at the findin...
Chandrakant Bhalekar and ors. Vs. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR453
R.J. Kochar, J.1. Six petitioners who are workmen are aggrieved by the judgment and Award dated 12th December, 1997 passed by the 7th Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference I.D.A. No. 246 of 1991 rejecting their reference for adjudication of the industrial dispute of propriety and legality of the dismissal orders and for the relief of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service with effect from 14th/15th December, 1982. Both the parties appeared before the Labour Court and filed their pleadings and documents in support of their respective contentions. Both the parties adduced oral evidence before the Labour Court. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court was pleased to uphold the legality and propriety of the dismissal orders passed against the petitioners and refused to grant any relief. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to question the legality and propriety of the said Award of the Labour Court. 2. Both th...
Krishna Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)456; II(2003)DMC199
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate and Special Public Prosecutor for the parties.2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.3. This revision application seeks to quash and set aside the impugned order of the Trial Court passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No, 212 of 2001 on 7.5.2002 during cross-examination of P.W. 2 - Nirmala by accused No. 5 after her re-examination by the prosecution.4. I have perused the record. It appears from the record that it was the prosecution case that a golden necklace which was a part of the belongings of the deceased-Puja, was presented by her mother P.W. 2 on a demand made by the accused. During the examination-in-chief, the prosecution produced three photographs marked Articles A, B and C, which were photographs of deceased Puja and which showed her wearing the necklace in question along with other golden ornaments. It was the prosecution case that these photographs were taken during...
Wasudha Sureshrao Jirapure Vs. Vijayanand Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sansth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR621; 2003(2)BomCR747; 2003(2)MhLj715
R.K. Batta, J.1. Rule. With the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Advocates for the parties were heard on rule. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to briefly enumerate the background in which these proceedings have been filed. The facts in both the petitions are identical and the issues involved are also identical and as such, both the petitions were heard together and they are disposed by a common judgment. 3. Petitioners were members of respondent Society. They are subsequent allottees of the shops. Initially, the shops were allotted to some other members which were cancelled and were allotted to the present petitioners. The initial allottees filed Dispute bearing No. 200/78 challenging the allotment made in favour of the petitioners and sale-deeds executed by the respondent Society in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners had paid total consideration of Rs. 40,000/- at the time of execution of Sale Deed...
Asha Madhusudan Joshi Vs. Ashok H. Bhide and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1035; 2003(2)BomCR323
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Vyawahare, learned Counsel for the appellant. The Counsel for the respondents is absent.2. The appeal against order is directed against the order dated 25-4-1995 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur below Exhibit 62 in Special Civil Suit No. 436/1992 whereby application moved by the appellant under Order XXXIX, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure for striking out defence of the respondents came to be rejected.3. Shri Vyawahare, learned Counsel for the appellant, states that appellant Smt. Asha w/o Madhusudan Joshi filed Special Civil Suit No. 436/1992 for partition and separate possession and claimed 1/10th share in the suit property. It is contended that present respondent No. 1 Ashok H. Bhide is brother of the appellant (plaintiff). Respondent No. 2 Smt. Sumitra is wife of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3 Ashutosh is son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent No. 4 Smt. Anuradha Huddar is a partner is M/s. Saket Builders and re...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Aminullah Khan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: II(2003)DMC5
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.2. Criminal Application No. 1880 of 2002 is filed by the applicant - State and Criminal Application No. 1386 of 2002 is filed by the father of the deceased Shahista Parveen for cancellation of Anticipatory Bail granted to the non-applicants by an order dated 2.5.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Criminal Application No. 178 of 2002 filed by the present non-applicants.3. The deceased Shahista was married to present non-applicant No. 3 - Zakauilah Khan on 2.6.2001, On 20.4.2002, an incident took place in which Shahista was set on fire. It appears from the record that on 20.4.2002, the police has recorded the statement of the deceased Shahista. In this statement, she has stated that two goondas had carried her from her house and set her on fire. A dying declaration dated 20.4.2002 recorded by the Executive Magistrate is to the same effect. However, when her father and relatives arrived on 21....
Indian Airlines Vs. Commr. of Customs (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT217Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against rejection of refund claim filed on the ground that the supplier had revised the price of the goods.2. The importer had cited an invoice dated 8-2-89 showing the value of USD 6900, to substantiate the price declared in the bill of entry filed on 16-2-89. The goods were cleared on payment of duty. In the refund application, the claim was made that the correct price was HFL 6430.The duty excess paid of Rs. 1,75,168 was sought to be refunded.3. We have seen two signals from the suppliers, dated Jan. 1989 and 14-2-89 confirming the price in HFL and offering a credit note to be issued by the supplier for the excess value charged. The credit note is not available for perusal. The claim was lodged in August 1989.4. Section 149 of the Customs Act permits amendment of the bills of entry where the documentary evidence was in existence at the time of clearance of the goods. The correspondence of the record does not fit the time frame. The actual remittance made to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »