Mumbai Court March 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.
Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Vs. Isco Track Sleepers Pvt. Ltd.,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR918; 2003(3)ARBLR558(Bom); 2003(6)BomCR290; 2003(4)MhLj776; [2004]55SCL549(Bom)
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. In all these petitions, constitutionalvalidity and vires of Sub-sections (5) and (6) ofSection 16 and Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) ofSection 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') havebeen challenged.2. We have heard the learned counsel for theparties.3. The learned counsel for the petitionerscontended that the above provisions are ultra vires,and unconstitutional being violative of Article 14of the Constitution, as they are arbitrary anddiscriminatory.4. Section 16 is under Chapter IV. The saidChapter deals with Jurisdiction of ArbitralTribunals. The section provides for competence ofArbitral Tribunal to decide its jurisdiction.Sub-section (1) enacts that the Arbitral Tribunalmay rule on its own jurisdiction, including rulingon any objections with respect to the existence orvalidity of arbitration agreement. Sub-sections(2), (3) and (4) of Section 16 provide for raisingof plea as to jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal...
Central India Builders Vs. the Food Corporation of India Project Imple ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR561; 2003(3)ARBLR586(Bom); 2003(6)BomCR264
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. Both the petitioners are being disposed of by common order. Arbitration Petition No. 191 of 2000 by the petitioners therein is to set aside the Award dated 20th November, 1989. Arbitration Petition No. 176 of 1993 is filed by the petitioners therein for the Award to be made a decree of the Court. The petitioners are respondents in each other petition. The first petition, therefore, to be considered would be petition No. 191 of 2000 where the Award has been challenged.2. A few facts may be set out which are necessary for disposing of the controversy that arises in the petitions challenging the award. The petitioners entered into an agreement with the respondents for the construction of godown at Panvel. The commencement of the work was to be from 24th November, 1983 and the work was to be completed within 24 months with the provision for extension of time. On 19th September, 1985 the respondents terminated the contract with the petitioners. In view of the termination...
Paras S/O Ramprasad Sahu Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MhLj24
P.S. Brahme, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Paras s/o Ramprasad Sahu has challenged the detention order dated 12th August, 2002 passed by respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Wardha detaining the petitioner under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offender and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996) (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 12th August, 2002 was served on the petitioner on 13th August, 2002. 3. As could be seen from the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority took into consideration the fact of petitioner's involvement in activities of bootleggers and engaging himself in contravention of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and in all, eight cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act have been registered against him at Police Station, ...
Shah Velji Narsee Vs. Vasantrai Umiyashankar Pandya and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR1054; 2004(2)BomCR352; 2003(3)MhLj979
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the original plaintiff challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Amravati, who had confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati, who had dismissed the suit with costs. 2. Brief facts are as follows : The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm duly registered under the Partnership Act and was carrying on business of manufacturing Kumkum, Gulal, Lobhan etc. and was having its place of business at Amravati. In the month of October 1981, the defendants placed three orders on telephone with the plaintiff for supply of goods on credit. As per the said orders, the plaintiff dispatched the required goods to the defendant vide motor transport receipt Nos. 130012 dated 16th October, 1981, 130022 dated 21st October 1981 and 130029 dated 22nd October, 1981 through Ghatge and Patil Transport Private Limited, along with the motor receipts the credit bi...
Mather and Platt (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT801Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 54,80/451.87 and penalty of equal amount under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise who has confirmed the above demand on thrust bearing assemblies manufactured by the applicants herein who are manufacturers of power driven pumps, both for handling of water and other than for handling water, by holding them to be bearings falling under Chapter Heading 84.82 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The period of dispute is 1996-97 to 2001-2002 (up to July, 2001).2. According to the applicants' item in dispute has no independent existence and is an integral part of the pump and is therefore neither an intermediate product nor the marketable final product attracting Central Excise Duty. The next contention of the applicants is that the items in question are not bearings and are hence entitled to exemption in terms of serial No...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›