Mumbai Court October 2004 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.
Mahindra and Mahindra Workers Union and anr. Vs. Suresh J. Rane and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ525Bom
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. Both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the challenges are more or less the same.3. Mr. Dalvi had taken out motion for relief by way of interim application which was marked as Exhibit 5A. That application has not been pressed. Reference therefore, made by the Industrial Court in the order of September 6, 2004, while disposing of Dalvi's application UA2 and Reference UA5 seems to be typographical error.4. Writ Petition No. 2760 of 2004 has been preferred by the Union against the order dated September 6, 2004 below Exhibit U in Complaint (ULP) No. 384 of 2004. This was an application by the Respondent No. 1 to 12 seeking directions against the Petitioners herein for conducting elections to the Managing Committee of Respondent No. 3 Union, by Secret ballot. By the impugned order the learned Industrial Court was pleased to partly allow the relief. Directions came to be issued to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and othe...
Madhavrao Digamber Rasane and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)5; II(2005)BC89
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. This criminal writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The petitioners contend that the original accused No. 1-'Amdar Balasaheb Thorat Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit' (hereinafter referred to as 'the society') is a registered Co-operative Credit Society under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Its functions are to accept savings and term deposits and offer loans to borrowers. The original accused No. 2 is the Chairman of the accused No. 1-society. The accused No. 3 is the Manager of the society. Original accused Nos. 4 to 17 are the Directors of siety.3. A complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 herein, Rasiklal Shantilal Ratadia in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangamner which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 1360 of 1997 for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal...
Shree Krishna Polyster Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Bom)206; [2005]274ITR21(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Having heard Mr. F. Irani, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, and Mr. R.V. Desai, learned senior counsel for the Revenue, we are of the view that substantial question of law that arises in the appeal may be framed and the appeal be disposed of finally at this stage.2. The substantial question of law is thus :'Whether the income received by the assessee on the surplus money in public issue of shares invested in bank deposits for a period of 45 days was assessable under the head 'Income from other sources' ?'3. Mr. F. Irani, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, strenuously urged before us that the interest earned by the assessee in investing the surplus funds received in public issue for a short period of 45 days was assessable under the head 'Profits and gains of business' and not 'Income from other sources'. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments : (i) CIT v. Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. : [199...
Divisional Controller Vs. Narendra Mukundrao Gulhane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR816
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner/MSRTC is challenging the judgment and order dated 6-12-1988 delivered by first Labour Court, Nagpur in Complaint (ULPA) No. 1059/1987 and subsequent order dated 16th July, 1991 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Nagpur in Revision (ULPN) No. 39/1989, upholding the judgment and order of the Labour Court.2. The respondent is working as driver with petitioner. On 15-1-1983 he was working as driver on a bus proceeding from Chandrapur to Arrive and said bus met with an accident and jeep having No. MTE - 1976 dashed with it. The charge in the charge-sheet is that with a view to stop the said jeep, which was coming from opposite side, the MSRTC bus was taken to right hand side, and at the same time, the jeep driver also took his jeep to his correct side, i.e. left hand side and hence both the vehicles came in front of each other and there was the accident. It is al...
Hafisabi W/O Miyajani and anr. Vs. Gulam Mohamad S/O Dadamiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR67
D.G. Karnik, J.1. These two appeals are directed against a common judgment and order, dated 8.4.1985, passed by the learned and Additional District Judge, Beed, dismissing Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 133/1982 and 134/1982.2. The property in dispute in both the appeals is a house property, hearing Municipal House No. 2087 (old No. 1850), situated at Badi Raj-Galli, within the limits of Beed Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). The suit property originally belonged to Dadamiya, who died in the year 1978, leaving behind him four sons, byname (i) Mohammad Hasham, (ii) Miyajani, (iii) Abdul Gafur, and (iv) Gulam Mohamad, Mohamad Hasham died long ago and there is no mention of his heirs. Miyajani died in the year 1950, leaving behind him a widow Hafisabi and a daughter Khajabegum, the appellants herein. It appears that after the death of Dadamiya and Miyajani, the suit property was transferred in the name of the appellants by the Beed Municipal Council in its records...
Mahendra Kumra Kate Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT222Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For the sake of brevity the full facts are not recorded here. The Tribunal in its order No. C-1/2045-50/02 WZB dt. 24.7.02 disposed off an appeal arising out of the same order as in the case of the present appellant.2. A Toyota Land Cruiser was imported in the name of one Shri Simon Pavoo Paliekara. Shri Paliekara was a store keeper in Dubai. He was in no position to import any car let alone a Toyota Land Cruiser. But he was a NRI (it is sometime better to be a non-resident India then a Resident Indian) A NRI can import a car if he was in possession of one while working abroad, when he returns homeward. Being a mere storekeeper he was never in possession of any such car. Someone seemed to have suggested that a car could still by imported in his name if he agreed to lend his name.2. The DRI officers got the wind of it. To make the story short, the car was confiscated and penalty was imposed on the hapless store keeper. In addition penalties were imposed on the clerks of CHA firm who...
Colgate Palmolive Company and anr. Vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR24; 2005(1)MhLj613; 2005(30)PTC32(Bom)
Lodha R.M., J.1. By this notice of motion taken out by the appellants it is prayed that the appellants be permitted to tender additional evidence marked Annexure T to Annexure '27' along with the affidavit of Dinesh Castellino dated 28th June, 2004.2. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents wanted us to hear and decide this application for additional evidence before the hearing of the appeal. Ordinary the legitimate occasion for consideration of the application for production of additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 should be when the appeal is heard but since the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents wanted this application to be heard first before the appeal was heard, we took up the Notice of Motion for hearing.3. We, therefore, have to consider whether the appellants may be permitted to tender additional evidence as sought for.4. The appeal in which the application for add...
K. Haridas L. Shenoy Vs. Johnoson and Johnson Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR59; 2005(2)MhLj455
Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith. The petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 1 for about two decades. By letter dated 5th May, 1994 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Operating Accounting Manager, expressing his desire to resign from the services of the company by giving three months notice. The letter further states out that the petitioner be relieved immediately. On the very same day the General Manager (Personal) wrote to the petitioner with reference to the letter of resignation, accepting the same and confirmed having relieved the petitioner from the service of the company with the close of work of May 5, 1994. On that letter the petitioner put in an endorsement setting out that he agreed to and accepted the same. On May 15, 1994 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Vice President of respondent No. 1. In that letter he points out that he had served for over 20 years. It is further set out that Mrs. Sharmila Limaye had assumed that the petitioner on 29...
Suresh Jaikumar Samuel Godavari and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2506
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Appellants are the original accused Nos. 1 and 2. They are challenging the judgment and order passed by the 2nd ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge Kolhapur in Sessions case No. 102 of 2000. By the said judgment and order dated 4-4-2002, the trial Court convicted the appellant-original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for having committed an offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay, fine of Rs, 5000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further, R.I. for six months.2. Brief facts are that dacoity took place in the house of the Dr. Dhananjay Gunde on 11-1-2000 between 1.30 a.m. to 5.00 a.m. The names of the accused were not known and the FIR was lodged on the same day under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested on 27-7-2000. Prior to that, on 25-7-2000, an ambassador car in which the accused were travelling f...
J.M. Perfumery Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT241Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre deposit of duty amounting to Rs 79,79,899/- with an equivalent amount of personal penalty confirmed against and imposed upon the appellant by the Commissioner by his impugned order.2. Mr A. Hidayatullah, the Ld Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr T. Gunasekharan, and Mr M.V. Ravindran, Ld Advocates, submits that the demand has been confirmed against the appellant on two counts. An amount of Rs 20.00 lakhs has been confirmed on the allegation and findings on clandestine removal of perfumery compound to one M/s Suresh Enterprises. The evidence for confirming the said demand is the statement of the said buyer, wherein he admitted that the compound received by him from the appellant under cash bills have not been entered in his record in its totality. Further the department has conducted investigation at the other buyers ends and found that the names of the buyers as reflected in the appellants invoices are f...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »