Mumbai Court December 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.
Dutron Plastics Ltd. and Nippon Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT86Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad, had confirmed the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeals filed by the appellants.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 35 of the Schedule to the CETA '85. They filed refund claims for the duty paid on the amounts, which were credited by them to their buyers account as turnover discount, on the ground that they had announced turnover discount policy for the year 1995-96 on 1st April and accordingly discount was granted to their buyers/dealers operating under Recurring Credit Scheme (RCS). They produced invoice-wise sales statement of relevant buyer/dealer-wise and credit notes issued to the buyer/dealer. It was observed that the claims were barred as the amount of duty claimed as refund is paid before six months from the date of filing of the refund claims. Accordingly, Show Cause Notices were issued to them proposing to reject the refund claims on the said ground. The ...
Sadashiv Gangaram Lambe, (Since Deceased by His Legal Heirs Akkabai Sa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR527
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. The point which arises for consideration in the matter is whether the notice demanding arrears of rent in excess of exact amount of rent due and payable by the tenant on the date of issuance of the notice would render such notice to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act' and, therefore, would be invalid and consequently the suit filed on the basis of such notice would not be maintainable. 2. The sub-section (1) of Section 12 provides that a landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay, the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases, if any and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of the said Act. T...
Lockwood Industrial and Transport Services, a Registered Partnership F ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR223
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This First Appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 7th October 1985 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No. 6405 of 1975 declaring the Respondents-original Defendants as tenants/protected licensees and dismissing the Suit of the Appellants-original Plaintiffs. 2. The Plaintiffs had filed a Suit seeking relief against the Defendants to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs' structures. A sum of Rs.8,500/-was sought by way of damages and further an amount of Rs.500/- per month was sought by way of mesne profits from the Defendants for illegal occupation of a structure. Despite these clear prayers indicating that the Plaintiffs sought possession of the premises which the Defendants were illegally occupying, the trial Court was of the view that this was a suit for ejectment and since Defendants were tenants/protected licensees, the suit was dismissed. 3. The short facts involved in the present case are as follows : O...
Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. the Chairman, Railway Goo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR840; (2005)IILLJ328Bom; 2005(1)MhLj1053
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. I The impugned order dated 2nd March 2004 has been passed by the Railway Goods Clearing and Forwarding Establishments Labour Board for Greater Bombay. By the order, a wage revision has been effected with effect from 1st January 2001 for the Mathadi Workmen engaged in the establishment of the Petitioner. The service conditions of these workmen are governed by the Maharashtra Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 and the Scheme framed thereunder. The operative directions issued by the statutorily constituted Board in its impugned order are as follows:'1. All the registered workmen (engaged by the Company and by Contractor) working at RCF Ltd., Chembur should be given wage rise at the rate of 18% (10% Interim rise after adjustment 10% + 8% =18%) on their existing Wage Rate on 112001. 2. On this rise levy as per the rate decided for RCF and rise in DA declared every year be given. 3. 6% increase in DA declared for the...
Novartis Ag and anr. Vs. Mehar Pharma and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR191; 2005(30)PTC160(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. The plaintiffs have moved the present Notice of Motion in the suit seeking reliefs in terms of prayers (a) and (b) thereof, inter alia, seeking a restraint order against the Defendants from manufacturing for sale, sell, marketing and exporting their anti cancer drug composed of the 'B-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate salt'' under the brand name 'VEENAT' or any other brand name till such time the exclusive marketing rights granted in favour of the plaintiffs on November 10, 2003 and gazetted on December 13, 2003 subsists. The plaintiffs also seek an order of appointment of a court receiver in terms of prayer (e).2. The plaintiffs submit that they are the holders of Exclusive Marketing Rights (hereinafter referred to 'EMR') granted under Chapter IV-A of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'). Section 24B of the Act deals with grant of EMR.It is submitted that since the plaintiffs have been granted in EMR, akin to a patent right by an expert st...
Nagar Yuwak Shikshan Sanstha's Nagpur College of Pharmacy Vs. State of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR180; 2005(2)MhLj230
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Khade, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Shri Chaudhari, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4.2. The petition is directed against Government Resolution dated 15-10-2004 issued by the respondent No. 1 State Government whereby though State Government has granted approval to intake capacity of sixty students in the petitioner College, same is for the academic session 2005-06.3. Shri Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner College was established in the year 1985 and intake capacity of students of the petitioner College was sixty right from its inception. Annual inspection of the petitioner College for the year 2004-05 was conducted by the respondent No. 4 All India Council for Technical Education and for the first time, intake capacity of the p...
Koran Marketing Vs. Shagun Mahila Audyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR167; 2005(2)BomCR577
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. In appeal against Order No. 44 of 2004 filed by the original plaintiff challenge is to the order dated 8-6-2004 passed below Ex. 6 by 4th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Chandrapur, in Special Civil Suit No. 65 of 2004. The said application at Ex. 6 was for attachment before judgment. The same plaintiff has also filed Appeal against Order No. 45 of 2004 which is directed against the order of even date passed below Ex. 5 whereby the trial Court has rejected the prayer of plaintiff for grant of restraining order in relation to one term deposit receipt. The necessary facts in this respect can be briefly stated as under :The Suit filed by present appellant is in relation to the amount which it has to recover from respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and had got work of transportation/supply of food grains to various Anganwadis of respondent No. 2 Zilla Parisha...
Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department Vs. Woman Atmaram Lede and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR568
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India the petitioners, all officers of State Government of Maharashtra challenger the order dated Fifth of February, 1999 delivered by member Industrial Court Nagpur in U.L.P. Complaint Number 9 of 1993. This Court has notice before admission on 29-11-1999 and since then the matter is pending for admission. On 26 November, 2001 this Court fixed the matter on 22 December, 2001 for final hearing at admission stage itself. Accordingly, matter is taken for final hearing and the request of both the parties. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally. Advocate Gilda argued the matter on behalf of petitioners while Advocate Mohokar argued the matter on behalf of both the respondent No. 1. Nobody appears for respondent No. 2 though served.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition can be briefly stated as under-Present respondent No. 1 Waman filed a complaint under Section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition ...
Gambhir Rajaram Chaudhari and ors. Vs. Nirmala W/O Bhaskar Chaudhari a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj36
ORDERNaresh H. Patil, J.1. By this application the applicants seek a relief of quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muktainagar in Regular Criminal Case No. 51 of 1998 by acquitting them of an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The applicants were convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants No. 1 to 3 are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of the respondent No. 1, who married to Bhaskar, son of the applicants No. 1 and 2.3. First Information Report came to be lodged on 10-7-1998 at Muktainagar Police Station against the applicants in which it was alleged that the marriage of Nirmala was solemnised in the year 1987 and she started residing jointly with her husband and the applicants at village Karki. After about 3 years of marriage, the applicants started ill...
Maan Agro Centre Vs. Eid Parry (India) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: III(2005)BC568; 2005(2)MhLj44
K.J. Rohee, J.1. The petitioner/original accused preferred this revision petition against the order dated 29-3-2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision No. 73/2003 and for restoring the order dated 14-2-2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 3rd Court, Akola in Summary Criminal Case No. 9192/99.2. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') filed Complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner on the ground that the two cheques dated 31-7-1999 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 62,051/- issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant were dishonoured and despite demand notice issued by the complainant to the petitioner, no payment was made.3. By order dated 3-1-2000, process was issued against the petitioner. In response to the process, the petitioner appeared before the concerned Magistrate. On 2-5-2001 the complainant moved an application (Exh.31) for permission to correct the descri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »