Mumbai Court February 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.
Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, Vs. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Ha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)44; 2003BomCR(Cri)1103; 2004CriLJ150; 2003(4)MhLj73
S.K. Shah, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.These Writ Petitions are filed by the accused persons involved in the same case and they are impugning the same order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa. Therefore, both these Writ Petitioners are decided by common order.2. By order dated 18th April, 2002, the learned Sessions Judge, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, passed below Exhibit 107 in Sessions Case No. 29 of 1997, allowed the prosecution to recall the four witnesses, being P.W.2 - Jayeshkumar Naginbhai Patel, P.W.5 - Ishwar Lakhma Vangad, P.W.7 - Kakad Radka Kurkutia and P.W.8 - Ladak Jania Mishal and examined them again. These witnesses are previously examined and they had turned hostile. It is this order which is impugned in the present Writ Petitioners.3. Brief facts would be necessary for considering the controversy involved.The petitioners in these two Petitioners are the accused in Sessions Case No. 29 o...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ibrahim Kalubhai Kazi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)94; 2003BomCR(Cri)1346
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Appeal against acquittal filed bythe State takes exception to the Judgment andOrder passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Pune dated March 27, 1987 in Sessions Case No. 256of 1986. The Respondent original accused Nos. 1along with two others, was charged under Section498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code, on the ground that they subjectedSaira to cruelty of grave nature, which resultedher in committing suicide by setting fire on 17thSeptember, 1985 at Chakan and thereby resulting inher death on 19th September, 1985 in SasoonHospital, Pune. The charge as framed against theaccused 1 to 3 reads thus:-'1. That you either individuallyor in furtherance of your commonintention between 25th March 1984 to 17thSeptember, 1985, near Ambethan Chowk,Mouje Chakan, Dist. Pune, treatedSou. Saira Ibrahim Kazi, aged about 22years residing at Chakan, subjected herto cruelty by wilful conduct of beatingher by demanding amount of 10,000/- andnot supplying he...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Government Company Vs. Mr. Tha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR177; 2003(6)BomCR337; 2003(3)MhLj617
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.Perused the records. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.1. The petitioners challenge the order dated 26.6.2002 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai in Appeal No. 275 of 2001. The said Appeal arose out of the order dated 28.2.2001 passed in interim Notice No. 481 of 2000 in TE Suit No. 148-185 of 2000. By order dated 28.2.2001 the trial Judge had discharged the Notice which was taken out by the respondent bank and by the impugned order the Appellate Bench set aside the said order of the trial Judge and directed the petitioners to pay to the respondents sum of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month being damages for wrongful use and occupation of the suit land w.e.f. 1.4.2000 and further to continue to pay at that rate till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had filed Civil Revision Application No. 1396/2002 wherein while issuing rule in the matter and...
HMP Engineers Ltd. a Company Incorporated under the Companies Act, 195 ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Bom71; 2003(3)ALLMR169; 2003(3)ARBLR452(Bom); 2003(6)BomCR313; 2003(3)MhLj853
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Petitioners by the present motion seeks condonation of delay in filing petition before this court under the proviso to Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, in respect of the proceedings which were earlier filed before Delhi High Court and which papers were returned to the Petitioners herein for filing before the appropriate court. The Petitioner wants that period to be excluded for computing the period of limitation under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. The issue of law which arises for determination in this matter is whether the time taken in prosecuting a proceedings, between the same parties before a competent court can be excluded for the purpose of computing period prescribed by Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 to challenge an award. 2. A few facts and dates may needed to be set out to answer the issue which has arisen. At the outset, it may be pointed out that in so far as application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned, the ma...
The Superintending Engineer, Gossekhurd Project, Vs. the Member, Indus ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR327
R.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Taken up for finalhearing with the consent of the parties.2. The Respondent No. 2 - Murlidhar Nagulwar,moved an application under Section 28 of the MaharashtraRecognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of UnfairLabour Practices Act, 1971, in Complaint ULP Case No. 1128 of 1990, alleging unfair labour practice on the partof the present petitioners. This application was filedon October 30, 1990. During the pendency of the mainComplaint, an application was moved on September 8, 1998at the instance of the respondent No. 2/employee, seekingcertain amendments, which was allowed by the learnedMember of the Industrial Court. However, subsequentapplication for amendment, which was moved on April 3,2001, that was at the stage of evidence, appears to havebeen rejected by the learned Member of the IndustrialCourt.3. The evidence in the matter was recorded and itwas over and the matter was closed for judgment on April30, 2001. On the date when the Ju...
Sopan S/O Jijaji Bhakre Vs. Uttamrao S/O Tolaji Bhakre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR675; (2003)105BOMLR486
A.P. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties.The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service for the respondent.3. The plaintiff/respondent herein instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and in the said suit, an application for grant of temporary injunction was moved. The Trial Court had granted temporary injunction. The plaintiff alleging breach of injunction order, filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for taking action against the defendants for disobedience and breach of injunction. The Trial Court allowed the said application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A and directed the detention of defendent No. 1 Sopan in civil prison for a period of 8 days.4. Aggrieved by the order directing detention in civil prison, passed under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A, dated 9.4.2001, an appeal ca...
Nanded Nagarpalika Dukan Vyapari Sanghatana, Through Its Chairman Sh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR546; (2003)105BOMLR275
D.S. Zoting, J.1. Heard Shri V. G. Sakolkar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri M.V. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondent.Admit. Taken up forthwith for final hearing with the consent of the parties.2. This is a appeal preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nanded, below Exh. 1 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2000 thereby dismissing the said appeal in default.3. Facts relevant for decision of this appeal may be briefly stated as under.4. Regular Civil Suit No. 212 of 1994 was filed for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent, from recovering the property tax from members of the plaintiffs organisation. The said suit was dismissed on 23.10.2000.5. Original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2000 before the District Court. The said appeal was fixed for hearing on 14.11.2002. It is pertinent to note that the said appeal was posted for hearing for the first time on that date. On tha...
Dr. Savaldas Hasumal Makheja, Medical Practitioner,since Deceased Thro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR372
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Being aggrieved by the decision dated 9/10.12.2002 of this Court (Single Bench) in Writ Petition No. 3487 of 1989, this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed and the following two preliminary issues as raised by the respective parties were framed by our order dated 29.1.2003.(a) Whether a writ petition would lie against, the decision of the District Court in an appeal under Section 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, the Bombay Rent Act) instead of a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure? (b) Whether this Letters Patent Appeal could be entertained when Writ Petition No. 3487 of 1989 was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?2. The learned Counsel for the respective parties in their address before us agreed that alongwith the preliminary issues so far framed, the merits of the respective submissions either in support or against the eviction order are also required to...
Raymond Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC77Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants herein are a composite mill engaged in the spinning of yarn, weaving and processing of fabrics, and availing facility of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Some quantity of yarn spun by the mills was being cleared on payment of duty to outside weavers who after weaving the same, returned the fabrics to the assessee for further processing and the assessees cleared such fabrics after processing, on payment of appropriate duty and at the time of clearance of such processed fabrics they availed deemed credit as per Notification 29/96-C.E., dated 3-9-1996 which was available inter alia to processed fabrics manufactured from unprocessed fabrics not woven in the same composite mill [para 5(iii) of the notification]. As the yarn was being issued on payment of duty for weaving on job work basis the assessees could have cleared the same under Rule 57F(4) after reversing 10% of the value of the yarn and taking back the e...
Paras Warehousing Corporation, Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT504Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Chemical De-Universe Ltd., the appellant in appeal C/147/95, was granted on 21.9.1988 an advance licence permitting it to import inter alia 590 tons of titanium dioxide, which was required to be utilised in the manufacture of synthetic alkyd enamel white, of which 2000 tons was required to be exported. The appellant imported between November, 1988 and March 1990 540 tons of titanium dioxide.2. The officers of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) received some information some time in 1991, that the appellant had not completed the export obligation that it was required to make and dispose of the raw material imported without payment of duty in contravention of law. Statements of Rastogi and other officers of the company were recorded and other information carried out. This resulted in the seizure of 38.253 tons of titanium dioxide which was at the premises of Paras Warehousing Corporation, appellant in appeal C/138/95. Investigation also revealed that sale of some goods by the i...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »