Mumbai Court July 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.
Navnilal K. Shah (Dr.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR764; (2004)ILLJ632Bom; 2004(1)MhLj984
R. M. S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20th October, 2000 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa, imposing the damages for the period prior to February, 1992 as also the percentage of the damages and fixation of the compound rate of interest for the pre-discovery period.3. The challenge to the impugned order is three fold. Firstly, that it is the scheme as it exists at the time of determination of damages that has to be applied for the purpose of computation of damages irrespective of the period for which the damages are to be computed and, therefore, it was not permissible to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to apply the guidelines under the scheme which were in force prior to the date of the decision in relation to the computation of damages. Secondly, bearing in mind the provisions of law and the explanation issued by way of circulars by the Go...
Daljit Kaur Jaggi Vs. Mumbai Suburban Electricity Supply Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR529; 2004(1)BomCR745
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 16th June, 2000 passed by the Appellate Authority under section 36(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', and the order dated 18th February, 1999 passed by the Electrical Inspector on a complaint made by the petitioner regarding the electricity bill dated 16th January, 1998 in relation to the month of December, 1997 issued to the petitioner.3. The petitioner is the owner of the shop premises at Andheri, Mumbai. The petitioner had allowed the said shop premises to be utilised by M/s. Sai Prerna Food Beverages Pvt. Ltd., on leave and licence basis under an agreement entered into in the month of November, 1995. Initially, the premises were provided with the single phase electric supply which was subsequently converted into three phase connection in March, 1996. Monthly bills were issued in relation to the el...
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Vs. Dattatraya E. Galave and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR177; 2004(1)BomCR759
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) No. 50 of 1999 whereby the Industrial Court has allowed the appeal against the orders dated 5th April, 1999 and 13th July, 1999 passed by the Labour Court in Application (BIR) No. 104 of 1995 filed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', and has directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with continuity in service however without payment of backwages.3. The impugned order is sought to be challenged on the ground that the Appellate Authorities, merely on the basis that the respondent was acquitted in criminal prosecution under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, could not have set aside the order passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court had held that domestic inquiry was fair and just and the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer were not perverse and henc...
H.R. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT411Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The facts of the case are that on 18-11-1999, the appellants herein who arrived from USA by Air-India Flight were intercepted by the officers of Customs Air Intelligence unit, International Airport, Ahmedabad. Shri H.R. Patel declared old and used IBM Computer with accessories valued at Rs. 24,000/-, while his employee, Mr. Brian Keith, declared networking equipment of value of Rs. 16,000/- and duty was paid on these values. Since the values appeared to be lower, the goods were detained. Enquiries made with the agents in India of M/s.IBM as well as from the agents of New Bridge Net Working Corporation revealed that the actual values were very much higher. On physical examination the goods were found to be new, and not old and used as claimed. Subsequently, the two passengers left for USA granting Power of Attorney to one Mr. J.B. Patel to pursue the case. Shri Patel produced some invoices for the seized goods, wherein the value of the goods was shown as over US$ 22,000 i.e. substan...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Borosil Glass Works Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Mum.)361
2. There is only one ground raised in this appeal It relates to interpretation of the provisions of Section 115J(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : 3. For the asst. yr. 1988-89, the assessee was originally assessed to an income of Rs. 39,39,228, after allowing deduction for the brought forward unabsorbed investment allowance of Rs. 54,76,236. It was subsequently found that the income assessable under Section 115J was Rs. 47,56,772 The assessment was therefore, rectified by bringing to tax the amount of Rs. 47,56,772. The AO also held that in view of provisions of Section 115J(2), there was no unabsorbed investment allowance to be earned forward, as the entire unabsorbed investment allowance brought forward from earlier years amounting to Rs. 54,76,276 got adjusted against the assessee's income as computed under normal provisions of the IT Act He held that unabsorbed investment allowance will not be carried forward since Section 115J(2) provided tha...
Tirthraj Ramnegeshwar Tiwari, Inspector, (Cib) W. Rly. Vs. Arunbhai P. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)137; 2004CriLJ813
Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is field by the original complainant who was duly authorised as Inspector of Western Railway, Bombay. It is directed against the order passed by 36th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay on 5th May 1987 in Criminal Case No. 151/8/1986.2. The original criminal case was started in the 36th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay under the provisions of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1968 and Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Factually the case was against 5 accused persons, three of whom were employees of the railway and allegedly connected with the theft of railway property and sale thereof subsequently, and two are the present respondents i.e. original accused Nos. 3 and 4 who were in possession of the stolen property probably because they were purchased the same from the persons stealing it from railway. Trial was conducted by the learned Magistrate. He decided the trial holding that accused No. 5 is liable to be discharged and charged...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Angelito Mercado
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(90)ECC797; 2003(157)ELT264(Bom)
ORDERV.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellant is the original complainant. By this appeal they have challenging the order passed by the Trial Court convicting the accused under the provisions of Section 135 whereby they were sentenced to undergo RI for two years and also a fine was imposed and in default of payment of said amount of fine it was further ordered that they would have to suffer further imprisonment. The prosecution case is that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, both, foreign nationals, were prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) read with Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution case in brief is that on 16-8-1999, the vessel by name AI-Wattyah had arrived from Dubai and when the officers of the Appellant took a search of the vessel they found six stitched cloth belts each containing 100 foreign marked gold bars concealed in the carpenter's store on board. They were weighing 69.998 kgs. valued at Rs. 2,48,11,482/- International Marke...
Vivek PravIn Tilwani (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR850; 2003(5)BomCR477; 2003(4)MhLj826
R. M. Lodha, J. 1. Heard. 2. At the outset, Mr. Pungalia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is not pressing the prayer to declare the merit list prepared for the post of Junior Resident-II as null and void and therefore, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 be deleted from the array of parties. We accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and delete the names of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's claim is now restricted to his selection for unregistered post of Junior Resident-III in Surgery at the Grant Medical College, Mumbai. 4. Rule. Returnable forthwith. 5. Ms. Kalyanram, A.G.P. waives service for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 6. Rule is heard finally at this stage. 7. The Dean, Grant Medical College and Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals invited applications for about 5 unregistered posts of Junior Resident-III in Surgery besides other subjects. As per the relevant clause in the advertisem...
Jerry Alex Braganza Alias Jeronimo Oriculo Alex Braganza and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj1034
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. Rule. Respondents No. 1, 2(a) to 2(c) waive service. Respondents No. 3 to 15 are formal parties insofar as the relief is concerned though they are parties in the suit and, as such, their interest would not be affected. Hence, notices on them are dispensed with. 2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 188/99 against the petitioners herein, who were the defendants No. 2 and 3. The record shows that the summons were directed to be issued on the defendants on 3-11-1999. Respondent No. 3 who is defendant No. 1 in the suit, filed written statement on 11-11-1999. On behalf of the present petitioners herein, time was sought to file written statement and the matter was adjourned on various dates for filing the written statement. On 21-12-2000, an application was moved by the petitioners herein under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. Thereafter, in terms of the Roznama entries maintained, the matter was adjourned for hearing and dispos...
Sion Shivneri Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. State of Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR146; 2004(1)MhLj557
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner-society challenges the order dated 8-3-1999, passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai, under Section 21-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', and the order dated 3-10-2000, passed by the revisional authority under the said Act, dismissing the revision application against the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar. By order dated 8-3-1999 the Divisional Joint Registrar had directed de-registration of the petitioner-society in exercise of powers under Section 21-A of the said Act. Hence the present petition.3. The impugned orders are sought to be challenged, firstly, on the ground that there was no show cause notice issued, in spite of specific direction by this Court in that regard, before proceeding to hear the matter under Section 21-A of the said Act, and secondly, the find...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »