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.
Rajpal Shyamlal Soude Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1033; 2003CriLJ4238
A.M. Khanwailkar, J.1. This appeal takes exception to the Judgment and order dated February 21, 1987 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 243 of 1985.2. The Appellant alongwith two others was prosecuted in connection with the alleged offence punishable under Section-307, 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also chargesheeted for offence punishable under Section-4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court however, has convicted the Appellant-Accused No. 1 only for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The Appellant-Accused No. 1 has been acquitted of all the other charges. Even the the Accused Nos. 2 and...
Rajiv Ramprasad Gupta Vs. Rustom Sam Boyce
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom242; 2003(2)ALLMR835; 2003(2)BomCR460; 2003(2)MhLj273
1. This is a petition under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for revocation of the grant of probate made in favour of the respondent in petition No. 987/2002. The relevant facts necessary for deciding this petition may be briefly stated as under :--2. One Dr. Mrs. Roshan Sam Boyce died intestate at Mumbai on 19th Day of November 2001, leaving behind her a sister and two brothers as her only legal heirs. The deceased had made a Will dated 21st June, 1989 under which she had appointed the respondent as sole executor. The respondent is the natural son of the sister of the deceased and according to him, he was adopted by the deceased. The deceased left behind her certain properties including a house called 'Villa Hormuzd' situate at 8-A, Carmichal Road, Mumbai - 400 026. It appears that the said house was in occupation of one Ramprasad Gupta, who claimed to be the tenant in the said property. The respondent being the sole executor, filed petition No. 987/2001 for grant of pro...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Raju Mahadeorao Bhagw ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)BomCR335; (2003)IIILLJ913Bom; 2003(2)MhLj769
V.C. Daga, J. 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Perused appeal. Heard rival contentions.2. This Letters Patent Appeal is at the instance of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation against the order dated 30th April 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 672 of 2002 to the extent it directs reinstatement of the original petitioner/respondent herein; in service within a period of three weeks from the date of order.3. The facts giving rise to this appeal in nut-shell are as under.The respondent herein had filed Complaint (ULPA) No. 593 of 1994 under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short) challenging the order of dismissal with effect from 23-6-1994. The said complaint, after the trial, was partly allowed by the 2nd Labour Court, Nagpur vide its judgment and order dated 17-6-1996 and directed reinstatement of the complainant/respondent on his forme...
Rajendraprasad R. Singh Vs. the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom392; 2003(3)ALLMR589; 2004(1)BomCR300; 2003(3)MhLj757
D.G. Karnik, J.1. All these appeals involve common questions of law namely:(1) Whether an order passed by the trial court to issue notice to the defendants and thereby declining to grant ex parte ad interim injunction is appealable?(2) If yes, when can an appellate court interfere in the discretion exercised by the trial court in refusing to grant ad-interim injunction and/or issuing notice?All these appeals arise out of various orders passed by the trial court declining to grant ex parte ad interim injunction and/or directing issuance of notices to the defendant. The wording of the orders is not uniform. However, words used in the various orders are like:(i) Issue notice to the defendants.(ii) Notice of motion made returnable on ....(iii) No case of urgency made out for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction. Issue notice to the defendants.(iv) No prima facie case made out for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction. Issue notice to the defendants.Real substance of these orders is th...
Engineering and Metal Workers Union Vs. Commissioner of Labour and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR528; 2003(4)BomCR804; (2003)IILLJ598Bom
D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether respondent No. 2 - the Joint Commissioner of Labour, who was holding the charge of the Commissioner of Labour at the relevant time, had authority in law to perform all functions and duties, including quasi-judicial functions of the Commissioner of Labour, and the impugned order passed by him under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, 'the Act') is non est and void for want of such authority. 2. The petitioner is a registered union under the Trade Unions Act and represents all the 400 employees who were employed by respondent-company. Respondent No. 1 is the Commissioner of Labour and is the specified authority under Section 25-O of the Act. Respondent No. 2 is the Joint Commissioner of Labour who has passed the impugned order in the absence of the Commissioner of Labour while he was holding the charge of the said post at the relevant time. The petitioner, in the pres...
Pressure Sensitive Systems Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT404Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming a penalty imposed upon the appellant for the reason that it incorrectly utilised Modvat credit of the amount paid under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 on inputs towards payment of the basic excise duty on the final product.3. The Counsel for the appellant agrees that this course of action adopted by it was not permissible by law. He says however that this was done due to inadvertence, and that the assessee has reversed the credit as soon as this was pointed out by the department. He contends that in a situation of this kind, where there was no mala fide, penalty was not imposable. He cites the decision of this Tribunal in Aromate (Cal.) Private Ltd. v. CCE - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 468.4. The departmental representative contends that this was not an isolated case, and that the assessee conti...
National Organic Chemical Ind. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT991Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the activity that the appellant undertook of fixing of high density polyethylene on the inner surface of pipes and mild steel amounts to manufacture. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has held that the process imparts to the steel pipes qualities of resistance to corrosion, abrasion, chemical action and stress and cracks so that it renders the pipes suitable in transportation of acids, pesticides and other such products. Since these qualities are lacking in unlined pipes, hence, this activity amounts to manufacture, resulting a new and distinct product. Apart from confirming the demand for duty issued to the appellant, the Commissioner has also imposed a penalty.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the submissions and the memorandum of appeal and also heard the departmental representative.3. For any process to amount to manufacture, it must result in emergence of a new ...
Cce Vs. Asia Textiles Zenith Weaves Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)(115)LC176Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeals involve a common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Both the respondents here in are engaged in the manufacture of texturised/crimped yarn falling under Chapter heading 54.03 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Small Scale Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.2.1993 was amended by Notification No.90/94 dated 25.4.1994 incorporating the goods falling under above mentioned chapter heading as "specified goods" for the purpose of S.S.I, benefit which was claimed by the respondents. Subsequently, vide Notification No.23/94-CX (NT) dated 20.5.1994, Rule 56A was deleted from the Central Excise statute and modvat benefit was extended to the product covered by chapter heading 54.03 by Notification No. 24/94 dated 20.5.94. The department was of the view that since the Notification No. 1/93 was effective from 1.4.1994, clearances from this dated should be computed and not only from the date when the assesses/respondents o...
J.T. Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)89ITD569(Mum.)
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Mumbai dated 09^th August, 1996 for the assessment year 1993-94. The various ground of appeal taken up by the assessee pertain to the addition of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- received on sale of 25,000 detachable warrants of Reliance Industries Ltd. According to the assessee the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erroneously confirmed the action of assessing officer by making the addition to the business income of the assessee company. It is also submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in not distinguishing the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Brothers Ind. Ltd. v. ITO (1964) 52 ITR 399. It is submitted that the detachable warrants were not held as stock-in-trade or trading assets.2. The assessee company is carrying on the business in debentures, shares and financing. It also derives income from investment in shares.The company i...
Mr. Vinay Asharam Rathi, a Practising Advocate Vs. Mr. M.S. Rao, the S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR132; 2003(4)BomCR402; 2003(3)MhLj154
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. The grievance of the Petitioner relates to non-compliance of the orders issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, First Class under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as the said Code). Pursuant to the said compliant, notices were issued to the Respondents to answer the charge of contempt for non-compliance of the orders dated 31st May, 2000 and 7th April, 2000 issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, as prima facie, it appeared, that inspite of specific direction to complete the investigation into the complaints filed by the Petitioner and to submit the charge-sheet or the summary report, as the case may, be, at earliest possible, there was no compliance of the said orders till 1st June, 2001. Consequent to such notices, affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of the Respondents by one Rajan Dhoble, Senior Police attached to M.R.A. Marg Police Station, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »