Mumbai Court January 2003 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.
Anil Dinmani Shankar Joshi and Deepak Dinmani Shankar Joshi Vs. Chief ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom238; 2003(2)ALLMR24; 2003(3)BomCR856
D.G. Karnik, J. 1. Heard Shri Shah for the applicants and Shri N.V. Walawalkar for the respondent No. 1. None present for the respondent No. 2 though served. Affidavit of service of respondent No. 2 is filed on record.2. The applicants filed a suit against Chief Officer Panvel Municipal Council as defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 herein as defendant No. 2. The petitioner filed a purshis on 11th February 2001 stating that the respondent No. 1 has granted the necessary permission for constructing of a building and sanctioned the plans and therefore, the plaintiff has no grievance against the respondent No. 1. By the said purshis, the applicants gave up all his claims against respondent No. 1 and sought to unconditionally withdraw the suit against respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 gave consent for the said withdrawal. The respondent No. 2 however opposed the said purshis and thereupon by an order dated 20th July 2002, the trial Court refused the permission to the applicants to wi...
Shri Khalil Nabi Patel and ors. Vs. Shri Gulam HussaIn SharfuddIn Pate ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1155; 2003(2)BomCR479; 2003(2)MhLj991
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The appellants herein filed a suit against the respondents bearing Special Civil Suit No. 847 of 1993 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. Under Clause 13, of the plaint, the suit was valued for the purpose of Court Fees and Court's Jurisdiction at Rs. 1,90,000/-.3. In the suit, the appellants filed an application for interim injunction to restrain the respondents from disposing of or creating any third party interests in the suit property till the decision of the suit. By the impugned judgment and order dated 6th July, 1984 the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane dismissed the application for interim relief.4. Section 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads thus:-'What courts to hear appeals: Where an appeal from any order is allowed, it shall lie to the Court to which an appeal would lie from the decree in the suit in which such order was made, or where such order is made by a court (not bei...
Shashikant Govind Malgaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR810; 2003(3)BomCR22; 2003(2)MhLj437
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The petitioner has impugned the award dated 5th March, 1993 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kolhapur in the reference made for adjudication under Sections 10(1) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'I.D. Act') regarding the demand of the petitioner for reinstatement with continuity of the service and full backwages. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to the dispute reveals that the petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 1 from 1st January, 1972 to 31st May, 1986 with seasonal breaks from June to September in few years. The petitioner claims that he had good record of service and his superiors were satisfied with his work. He was initially employed as a River Gauge Recorder (Assistant) and sometimes as Supervisor. The petitioner was terminated on 31st May, 1986 when he was holding the post of Mukadam. It is the case of petitioner that he was initially appointed on daily wages from 1-1-1972 and was continued without anyint...
Vandana Mohan Gunjal and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR238; 2003(3)BomCR853; 2003(2)MhLj864
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioners herein are wife and husband respectively. The return was filed by the petitioners under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 'Act of 1976') before the Additional Collector and Competent Authority. In the return, the petitioners showed that they were owners of plot Nos. 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 41 and 42 out of survey Nos. 968/969, Bhamburda, Shivajinagar, Pune but mentioned that plot Nos. 25, 26, 27, 41 and 42 were leased out to one Mr. Prabhakar Purshottam Joshi on 23-1-1975 by way of registered lease deed and as such they were holding the land comprising of plot Nos. 34 and 35 only. The Competent Authority, Pune initially issued a draft statement on 12-1-1985 under Section 8(3) of the Act of 1976 declaring therein that the petitioners hold vacant land admeasuring 1532.40 sq. mts. and since they are entitled to retain 1000 sq.mts. of the vacant land, remaining land of 532.40 sq.mts. was liable to be surrendered. The ...
Jagdeo Ramchandra Raipure Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR569; 2003(4)BomCR102; 2003(3)MhLj273
ORDERR.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. All these petitions raise a common question as regards presentation of a nomination paper to the election of the managing committee of the Respondent No. 4-society, i.e. Harsoda Gram Seva Co-operative Society, Harsoda, Tq. Malkapur, District Buldhana.3. All the petitioners in these petitions, in order to contest the election for the membership of the Managing Committee of the respondent No. 4-society, submitted their nomination papers on 12-12-2002, strictly in accordance with the election programme. However, after the nomination papers were submitted, on the date of scrutiny, i.e. on 16-12-2002, the respondent No. 2 -- Returning Officer, rejected the nomination papers of all the petitioners in these petitions, precisely for the reason that the nomination papers were not submitted by the petitioners either personally or through their proposers. This rejection of the nomination papers came in pursuance of...
Star India Private Limited Vs. Laxmiraj Seetharam Nayak and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR563; 2003(3)MhLj726
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 presently known as Star India Private Limited. It carries on a business of acquiring copyrights in cinematographic films, television serials, programmes etc. and it also produces and commissions production of television programmes for various television channels. The plaintiff also claims that it enjoys tremendous popularity amongst television viewers in India and abroad. The plaintiff has an exclusive contract/contracts with Satellite Television Asia Region Ltd., a company incorporated in Hong Kong for advertising and revenue collection in respect of its eight telecast channels.2. The defendant No. 1 joined the plaintiff company as Area Sales Manager in January 1993 and the graph of his progress shows that he became Sales Manger, Vice President Advertising Sales, Senior Vice President Advertising Sales and on and from July 2002 he became Executive Vice President Advertising Sales under the ren...
Pawan Enterprises Vs. Satish H. Verma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)20; 2003(2)ALLMR756; III(2003)BC198; 2003BomCR(Cri)474; 2003CriLJ2146
S.T. Kharche, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Application takes an exception to the order of acquittal dated 17th February, 1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in private Criminal Case No. 29 of 1998 whereby the non applicant/accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under: The respondent purchased one Onida colour T.V. on 4th April, 1996 from the applicant for a total consideration of Rs. 22,760/-. The said T.V. was delivered to the non-applicant on same date and he made over the payment of Rs. 5,000/- in cash. The non-applicant had issued the post-dated cheque for the amount of Rs. 17,745/- on 8th January, 1998 and he was supposed to pay the balance amount in instalment or in accordance with the post-dated cheque. When the cheque was presented for encashment on duedate, it was dishonoured. The fact of dishonour was communicated to the applicant by the Bank on 10th...
Mallappa Kallapa Shahapure and ors. Vs. Narasingh Saraswati Deo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR64; 2003(3)BomCR858
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is by tenants or agricultural land whose rights to purchase the land under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') have been interfered with by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short the 'M.R.T.') by remanding the proceedings to the Tahsildar for enabling the respondent to produce an exemption certificate, even though the matter had been remanded earlier for the same purpose, but to no avail.2. The petitioners' father deceased Kallapa Ningappa Shahapure was a tenant in possession and cultivation of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 321/2, admeasuring six acres 39 gunthas, now gat No. 1095, situate at Alas, taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur, on the tiller's day. The father was a tenant of the suit land even prior to 1957. The petitioners assert that the land in question belonged to one Vasudeo Pujari.3. Proceedings under section 32-G of the Act were initiated in order to enable t...
Diary Den (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC511Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Diary Den Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad imported a consignment of ice-cream making machine and filed two bills of entry in September, 1992 for their clearance. The investigations by the department extend also to a consignment which had arrived and was sought to be cleared during the pendency of the investigation. The investigation resulted in the issue of notice to the importer proposing to deny the exemption contained in Notification 59/87, enhancing the value of the machine from that declared of Rs. 985198 - to Rs. 5846492 and assessing the machine to duty at this value and imposed penalty on Harish Shah, its Managing Director. Adjudicating upon the notice, the Commissioner confirmed all the proposals in it, proceeded to deny the exemption enhancing the value of the machine for assessment and demanded the duty consequently due, imposed penalty on the appellant and the Managing Director. These two have appealed this order.2. We shall first consider the eligibility of the goods to exemption...
Frontier Trading Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC520Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of goods that the appellant imported and cleared through Bombay Custom House. In the bill of entry that it presented for their clearance, it described them as "magnetic accupressure treating instrument." The classification was claimed in Heading 9019.10 of the Tariff. The imports took place during the period between 1997 to 2001. In August of 2000, the department searched the premises of the appellant, conducted some enquiries including recording a statement of Asan Pandit, the Managing Director of the imported firm between September of that year and April next year. Twenty five notices were issued to the appellant.These notices claimed that the product was correctly assessable in Heading 9404.29 and proposed to recover duty short levied. Another notice was issued on 8-12-2000 relating to goods imported by the applicant and not cleared. This notice too proposed classification in Heading 9404.29, proposed confiscati...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »