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.
Nelton India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT432Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri B.R. Randive, Consultant appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri H. Kothikar, S.D.R. appeared on behalf of the Revenue.2. After hearing both sides, it is seen that the appellant has come in appeal against the impugned order disallowing Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 3,64,175.28 P.3. The Commissioner in Para 13 of the impugned order in the last lines has recorded as under :- "So far as the amount of Rs. 3,64,175.28 is concerned where the duty paying documents (gate passes/certificates in original) were not produced by M/s. Nelton India Ltd., since M/s. Nelton India Ltd. have shown willingness to forego the said Modvat credit, I do not consider it necessary to go into the question of time-bar." 4. I do not find any justification as to how the appellant after forgoing the claim for the said amount has chosen to file the present appeal. In my view, the appeal is not maintainable and as such I dismiss the appeal being against the consent order....
Shri Janardan Nago Patil Vs. Shri Ramanand Ramdas Mishra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR389; 2003(4)MhLj853
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the owner of the suit property. Defendant is a tenant therein on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction against the respondent under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, Bombay Rent Act). The trial court framed as many as 12 issues. The trial court held all the issues against the petitioner and held that the petitioner was not entitled to possession. In view thereof, the trial court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal in the District Court, Thane. By a judgment and order dated 9th January, 1990 the learned 8th Additional District Judge, Thane dismissed the appeal of the petitioner which is challenged in this petition.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first appellate court did not apply its mind to the facts in controversy at all. The learned Judge did not even frame the nece...
Pune Ganesh Festival Janotsav, Pune Ganesh Utsav Samitee, a Public Cha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR604; 2004(3)BomCR452
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioners praying for an issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Pune Municipal Corporation, respondent No. 1 herein, not to make any expenditure on cultural activities, unless and until all the statutorily imperative duties imposed upon the Corporation are completely and satisfactorily discharged by the Corporation. A prayer is also made directing the respondent-Corporation and the Municipal Commissioner to allot places belonging to the Municipal Corporation, viz., the ground opposite to Shaniwarwada, Yashwantrao Chavan Natya Gruha, Balgandharv Rang Mandir, Ganesh Kala Krida Kendra and Baburao Sanas Sports Ground, only by conducting public auction and by giving them to the person offering highest bid. Other prayers have also been made.2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is a public charitable trust. It conducts cultural activities on large scale during Ganesh Utsav. At pune, there are certain grounds belongi...
Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. Paints Employees Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR355; [2004(101)FLR486]
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 30.1.2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, in Complaint (ULP) No. 68 of 1990. By the impugned judgment and order the Industrial Court has declared the petitioners-company having committed unfair labour practice under item No. 1(c) and 2(b) of Schedule II and items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P.Act 1961, hereinafter called as 'the said Act' and has directed the Petitioners-company to pay to the concerned members of the complainant-union the amount as per the settlement dated 22.8.1989 by deducting Rs. 2000/- for factory workers and Rs. 1750/- for staff members. The impugned judgment and order is sought to be challenged on three grounds, viz. that the members of respondent-union had not accepted the terms of the settlement dated 22.8.1979 and therefore, cannot claim benefit under the said settlement, secondly that the mem...
Munawar Khan HusseIn Khan Since Deceased by His Heirs Ibrahim Munawar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR466; 2004(3)BomCR391; 2003(4)MhLj679a
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Following question of law arises for consideration in this Writ Petition:1. Whether amendments to the Bombay Rents Hotels and Lodging Houses Rates Control Ac, 1947 (for short 'Bombay Rent Act') made by the legislature of Maharashtra, after it was made applicable to the cantonment areas in he State of Maharashtra by a notification dated 27th December, 1969 issued by the Central Government are also applicable to the cantonment areas3. The facts giving rise to the petition may briefly be stated thus:The suit property consists of a room in House No. 392, Kolsa Galli, Mahatma Gandhi Road situated within the local limits of Pune Cantonment, in the State of Maharashtra. The suit premises were owned by the respondent No. 1, Somnath Laxman Holkar, who has died during the pendency of the petition and is represented by his legal representatives. One Ms. Aminabi Bohari was a tenant of the suit premises and the respondent No. 2 is said to b...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Matushree Textile Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR863
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. At the instance of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion, under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a true and correct interpretation of provisions of the Maharashtra Sales Tax on the Transfer of Property in Goods involved in the Execution of Works Contracts (Re-enacted) Act, 1989, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the processes of dyeing and printing of cloth do not fall within the ambit or purview of the said Act ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a true and correct interpretation of provisions of the Maharashtra Sales Tax on the Transfer of Property in Goods involved in the Execution of Works Contracts (Re-enacted) Act, 1989, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the activity in which the transfer of property in goods is too insignificant ...
Champabai W/O Shankarrao Patwari and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR874; 2004(2)BomCR749; 2004(1)MhLj148
A.P. Deshpande, J. 1. A common question of fact and law emerges in all these petitions and, as such, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. All the petitioners and/or their predecessor in title had filed returns under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (For short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') and thereafter an enquiry was held under Section 14 read with Section 21 of the Ceiling Act by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. The S.L.D.T. by its orders passed in all the petitions, held that the petitioners do not hold land in excess of the ceiling limit.3. Under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act, State Government is empowered to call for the record of any enquiry or proceedings under Section 17 to 21 (both inclusive) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any enquiry or proceedings and may pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The said power of the State Government 'to...
Onkar S/O Mahadeorao Konde Vs. Shobha Ambadas Ugale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR137; 2004(1)CTLJ306(Bom); 2004(1)MhLj172
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This Second Appeal is by the defendant No.2. The suit was filed by his sister, the respondent No. 1 Shobha. The suit is for partition and separate possession of several properties referred to in the plaint. The details of the properties are set out in the judgment of the two Courts below and hence are not reproduced here. The plaintiff (present respondent No. 1) claimed partition of l/3rd share in the property belonging to her deceased father. The share is claimed from the defendant No. 1 (present respondent No. 2), and the defendant No. 2 (present appellant), who are the uncles of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 3 (present respondent No. 3) is a purchaser of the suit property.2. In brief, the case of respondent No. 1 is that her parents died long ago and she was brought up by her uncles, defendant Nos. 1 and 2. They settled her marriage and made arrangement for incurring expenses for the marriage. She claimed that three days before the marriage i.e. 20th May, 1974 th...
Ajay S/O Anandkumar Patil and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj343
P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard Mr. M.R. Daga, Advocate for the Applicants and Mr. Loney, the learned A.P.P. for the State-Respondent.2. This revision application is preferred by the applicants for challenging the order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Washim on application Exh. 43 in Sessions Trial No. 85 of 1996 filed by the applicants accused for alteration of the charge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim heard the counsel for the parties and rejected one application filed by the applicants for discharging them. Then the learned Sessions Judge framed charge for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 341, 342, 354 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the applicants filed an application Exh. 43 claiming for alteration of the charge to offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court rejected the application. The applicants approached this Court by preferring criminal revision No. 134 of 1999. This Court, by an order dated 10th September,...
Gango Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Bom64; 2004(1)ALLMR115; 2004(3)BomCR879
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties, Perused records. The short point for consideration which arises in the matter is whether the Corporation could have rejected the proposal of the petitioner for utilisation of the balance 0.25 FSI potential of the plot which undisputably belongs to the society.2. The petitioners are the owners of a land bearing CTS No. 248 at Borivali (West), Mumbai Suburban District, having purchased the same from M/s. Parag Corporation, the builders. The title to the plot was acquired by the petitioner-society pursuant to a consent decree passed in Original Side Suit No. 1272 of 1984 on 22-9-1984. Accordingly the petitioners' name has been entered as the holders/occupiers of the plot in the property register card. At the time of acquisition of title to the property by the petitioners-society, the permissible F.S.I, was 0.75.1. However, under the Development Control Regulation 1991, the FSI which could be availed from the propertie...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »