Mumbai Court August 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.
Gujarat Steel Rolling Mills, Vs. Commissioner of Customs and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT1035Tri(Mum.)bai
1.The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 97,373/- imposed upon the rolling mills and Rs. 10,000/- each imposed upon the partner and the manager of the mills arise out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the entire duty amount was paid during investigation and further the adjudicating authority whose order has been upheld by the lower appellate authority, had imposed consolidated penalties under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC which is not permissible in law and which has been found to be unacceptable in the earlier orders of the Tribunal. As regards the partner of the manufacturer it is his submission that since the case of the departments of shortage/non-receipt of about 64 MT. of inputs the provisions of Rule 209A are not attracted as this rule prima facie requires physically dealing with the goods. He relied upon the orders of the Tribunal which has taken a prima facie view that phy...
Motorola Incorporated a Company Incorporated and Existing Under the La ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1576
J.A. Patil, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally.2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.11.2001 regarding issuance of process passed against it in Cri. Case No. 181/2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Khadki, Pune. The said case is a private complaint filed by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner and six others on the charge of having committed an offence punishable under Section 420 r.w.s. 120B of the India Penal Code.3. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware (U.S.A.). Respondent No. 3 (Original Complainant) is also a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 24.10.1994. The said complainant relates to equity investments made by the respondent No. 3 in Iridium Inc., a company incorporated under the law of the state of Delaware (U.S.A.) which later on became Iridium ...
Shri Devprakash Rajput Proprietor of Sree Vinayak Trading Company Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)5; I(2004)BC624; 2003BomCR(Cri)1393; 2003CriLJ4521
1. The petitioner challenges his involvement as an accused in criminal case bearing No. 87/S/1996 pending before the Metropolitan magistrate, 4th Court Girgaon, Bombay, wherein he is facing a prosecution for committing an offence under provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The only point which has been urged is that the cheques in question were blank and they were kept as such with respondent No. 1 as a matter of security for continuous supply of kerosene to the petitioner. The cheques are of huge amount. When a query was made, Shri More was unable to show any agreement between petitioner and respondent No. 1 by which the petitioner was to keep blank cheques with respondent No. 1 as a security for continuous supply of kerosene to him. No agreement happens to be in existence between petitioner and respondent No. 1 for supply of kerosene to him. 3. In a commercial world nobody would normally keep blank cheques of huge amount only for security for continuous supply o...
Prakash Namdeorao Kedar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR409; 2004(3)BomCR417; 2003(4)MhLj233
D.D. Sinha, J. 1. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice referred Writ Petition No. 786 of 2002, Vijay Sukhdeo Naydekar v. State of Maharashtra and three Ors. to the Larger Bench in view of the Order of Reference, dated 3-2-2003, passed by the Division Bench. Similarly, Writ Petition No. 77 of 1995, Prakash Namdeorao Kedar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., as well as Writ Petition No. 262 of 1996, Gajanan Govindrao Isal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., are referred to this Larger Bench by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, and Writ Petition No. 1598 of 2003, Smt. Uma Jamunalal Joshi v. State of Maharashtra and two Ors., is also referred to us by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in view of the reference order, dated 17-4-2003, passed by another Division Bench.2. Since a common question of law is involved in the above referred Writ Petitions, we have heard all the Writ Petitions together and disposed of the references by this common judgment.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties in the respective...
Chandmal Motilal Bora, Advocate and Notary Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)MhLj41
1. The petitioner, who happens to be a practicing advocate and Notary, is hereby praying for discharging him from criminal prosecution bearing Criminal Case No. 212/1995, which is revolving around number of offences like 395, 344, 347, 365, 387, 324, 506 r/w Section 120B of Indian Penal Code.2. It is the allegation of the prosecution that other accused kidnapped the complainant Rajendra Samarth from his house by calling him to the house of a person of his acquaintance by giving him threats. The complainant as indicated by the prosecution case, left his house and walked along with some of the accused to the house of his acquaintance. It is alleged that in the said house other accused besides the present petitioner, assaulted him, threatened him and detained him. Thereafter from that house he was taken to Akola, from Akola he was taken to Nagpur, from Nagpur taken to Chandrapur, from Chandrapur via Nasik he was taken to Raigad, from Raigad he was taken through Pune to Nasik. At Nasik, it...
Dilip S/O Devdatta Jejani Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR445; 2003(4)MhLj649
A.P. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heardthe learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent. 2. The petitioner by the instant petition questions the legality and validityof the order passed by the respondent No. 2 State Government dated 24-4-2003 atAnnexure 'F'. The said order is purported to have been passed in exercise ofpowers under Section 42(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, NagarPanchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 in an appeal filed by therespondent No. 3, a defeated candidate in municipal election. 3. The petitioner was elected as a municipal councillor to MunicipalCouncil, Wadsa Desaiganj in December, 2001 as a candidate of Bharatiya JanataParty whereas the respondent No. 3 had contested the election as a candidate forthe rival party and had lost the said election. The third respondent filed an appealbefore the Minister for State, Department of Urban Development, Mantralayamaking a complaint therein to the effect that the petitioner...
Shobha M. Bhave (Dr.) and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR303; 2004(4)BomCR368; [2004(101)FLR109]; 2004(1)MhLj97
A.P. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioners are presently working as lecturers in the different faculties in Government Medical Colleges and Hospitals located in the State of Maharashtra. The posts held by the petitioners under the Rules are required to be filled in by following the selection procedure through Maharashtra Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as MPSC, for short), by advertising the posts and by calling applications from the eligible candidates. As various posts in the cadre of lecturers remained to be filled in for various reasons, the petitioners came to be appointed on an ad hoc basis by the State Government as a stop gap arrangement. All the petitioners are appointed under different appointment orders for a specified period, ranging from less than a month to about four months. After expiry of the periods specified in the appointment orders, they are reappointed by issuing fresh appointment orders from time to time and are continued as ad hoc and temporary. Mos...
Janardhan Mohandas Rajan Pillai and anr. Vs. Madhubhai Patel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom490; 2003(4)ALLMR9; 2004(1)BomCR736; 2004(1)MhLj37
ORDERNishita Mhatre, J.1. The present notices have been issued in Execution Applications filed by the defendants against the plaintiff for recovering the costs which have been awarded to them by the English Courts. The matter in dispute has arisen as follows: An article was published in the issue of the 'Sunday' dated 13/19-6-1993 concerning the plaintiffs and which they found to be defamatory. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a suit for damages in the English Court in 1993 alleging that the article was defamatory. Defendant No. 3 was the publisher and Defendant No. 4 was the Distributor of the magazine. On 13-8-1993. Defendant No. 4 made an application before the Master Queen's Bench Division for stay of the suit on the ground that the English Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the magazine was published from India and the proper Court would be the Indian Court. This application of Defendant No. 4 was dismissed by the Master on 28-3-1994. An appeal was preferred by Defendant...
The State of Maharashtra Through Special Land Acquisition Officer and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR253
B.H. Marlapalle1.The Regional Development Plan for Aurangabad was sanctioned vide notification dated 20th March, 1971 by the Government of Maharashtra and it was amended by notification dated 30th October, 1972 and 3rd February, 1973. By a notification dated 4th May, 1973 the Government of Maharashtra was pleased to appoint the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (CIDCO) as the Special Planning Authority for the Aurangabad new township under section 40(1)(b) read with section 113 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (the MRTP Act, for short). The CIDCO carried out survey and prepared a draft proposal for the development plan by publishing it in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 24th May, 1973 as per the provisions of section 40 (3) (d) of the MRTP Act and the same was approved by the State Government. It approached the Collector, Aurangabad vide letter dated 8th May, 1985 with a request to initiate the land acquisition proceedings u...
Labour Law Practitioners Association Vs. Vidarbha Labour Laws Practiti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ273Bom
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the proceedings. After hearing both the learned counsel for some time, both the learned counsel have filed a pursis signed by the learned counsel. The judgment and order dated February 27, 2003 stands modified to the extent as stated in para 3 of the pursis.2. The learned A.G.P. has placed on record a report of the learned President I/C of the Industrial Court to disclose the progress made by the State Government in furtherance of the aforesaid judgment and order passed by this Court. The report is taken on record as Exhibit 'X'. The Learned A.G.P. shall file the status report as required in the judgment.3. We are constrained to observe that the learned Judges were not properly assisted and appraised by the learned Additional Registrar Shri J.H. Bhatia. Had he pointed out the position correctly there would not have been the occasion for this Court to observe that the 4 Labour Courts and 2 Industrial Courts should be shifted to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »