Mumbai Court February 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.
Gajanan R. Salvi Vs. Satish Shankar Gupte and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Bom455; 2005(1)MhLj966
P.V. Kakade, J. 1. Both these proceedings can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment as they are between the same parties and the issues involved are inter-linked.2. The appeal is aimed against the judgment and order dated 26.4.1988 passed by the City Civil Court Judge, Bombay in S.C. Suit No. 2847 of 1982 whereby the suit came to be dismissed under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C., whereas the Appeal from Order has arisen due to order dated 5.3.1990 passed by the City Civil Court Judge, Bombay, dismissing the notice of motion of the present appellant.3. The facts giving rise to the dispute, in nut-shell, are thus -The plaintiff-appellant appears to be a retired pensioner, while the defendant No. 1 is a builder and developer of various properties. On 10.9.1974, an agreement came into existence between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 whereby the plaintiff was to purchase and defendant No. 1 was to sell flat No. C-23 on third floor of a construction proposed ...
N.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR562; 2004(3)BomCR24; 2004(3)MhLj478
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 24th October 2001 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in O.A. 305 of 1997. By the impugned order the Tribunal upheld the order dated 30th October 1996 issued by the respondents herein. The challenge arises in the following factual Background.2. The petitioner retired as a Traffic Costing Officer from Central Railway on attaining age of superannuation on 31st October 1993. In the year 1991, when the petitioner was working as SEM (M and S), Head Quarter Mumbai he came to be transferred to Jhansi by office order No. 574 of 1991 dated 24th October 1991. He reported sick and joined duties on 6th July 1992 at Jhansi. While serving at Bombay, the petitioner was allotted railway quarter. It is the case of the respondents that even after the transfer order, the petitioner conti...
Laxman S/O Ramji Deshmukh Since Deceased Through His Lrs Savitribai Wd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR904; 2004(3)MhLj1050
S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this petition is directed against the order dated 8-11-1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur (MRT) in revision application No. Ten. A.78/86 of Veni Bk. whereby the MRT confirmed the concurrent findings of the learned Sub Divisional Officer in appeal and the Naib Tahsildar rejecting the application filed by the petitioner (deceased Laxman through his legal heirs) under Section 36(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1948 (for short, the Tenancy Act) seeking possession.2. Relevant facts are as under :Field survey No. 37/1, area 6.00 acres at village Veni Buzruk was owned by one Umaji s/o Ramji Deshmukh and the petitioner was said to be a tenant inducted on the land by the said Umaji Deshmukh in the year 1958-59. The petitioner Laxman Ramaji Deshmukh died during the pendency of this petition and his legal heirs have been bro...
Ranjan Bhagwant Kedar and anr. Vs. Hmp Engineers Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ939Bom
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent No. 4 to initiate proceedings against respondent No. 1 for recovery of Rs. 24,34,773/- mentioned in Recovery Certificate dated June 26, 1998. We are informed by learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 2 is dead. Respondent No. 3 is not present, though served. We have heard Ms. Gayatri Singh learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Kharawala for respondent No. 1 and Ms. M. Kajle AGP for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.2. Petitioner No. 1 is employee of respondent No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 is a registered Trade Union representing employees of respondent No. 1. It is their case that respondent No. 1 took over the undertaking of Rallis India Ltd. by an agreement dated April, 4, 1991. Petitioners had filed Complaint (ULP) No. 477 of 1997. On December 11, 1997 an order was passed by Industrial Court on an undertaking given by respondent No. 1 company that salaries for the month of May_ 1997 will ...
Sudhir S/O Trimbakrao Bidwai and anr. Vs. Kanayalal Madanlal Factory a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ914Bom; 2004(4)MhLj833
S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this petition is directed against the order dated 28-6-1991 passed by the appellate authority, i.e. the Industrial Court in Appeal (PGA No. 11/1984), whereby the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the application of the petitioners seeking relief of payment of gratuity was rejected on 20-10-1984.2. The relevant facts are as under:One Trimbakrao was employed in the firm, named and styled as, 'M/s Kanayalal Madanlal Factory, Deptt.' as a clerk in the year 1952 and was required to carry out all types of clerical work. Trimbakrao died on 14-10-1982. The petitioner No. 1 is son and petitioner No, 2 is his widow and they had filed the proceedings i.e. the payment of gratuity Case No. 23/83 before the controlling authority i.e. the Labour Court claiming payment of gratuity as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, the Gratuity Act). T...
Balu @ Yeshwant Kisan Khude Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC476
P.V. Kakade, J. 1. The appellant preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.3.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1997 wherein he was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months.2. The facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are thus-Deceased Radha Balu @ Yeshwant Khude was the second wife of the accused Balu. Accused had two daughters from his first marriage. Accused performed second marriage with deceased Radha after death of his first wife in the year 1997 when he was serving as watchman with P.W. 6 Mehta, who was running the business of machinery in Kasba are in Baramati. Accused was residing in our house of the show room of said Mehta, which was under construction in the year 1997. accused was residing with his second wife deceased Radha and two dau...
Shaikh Afsar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC710
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded on 22.11.1999 by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 215 of 1998. Both the appellants/original accused have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('Code' for short). For the first offence, each of the appellants has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months and for the second offence each of them has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The prosecution story unfolds as follows : Tabassum--daughter of Mumtaz Begum, wife of Shaikh Naimoddin was married to appellant No. 1 (original accused No. 1) about one and half months before the incident. Appellan...
N.M. Wadia Institute of
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT298Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Manoj Sanklecha Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri Sanjay Singhal, Ld. JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.2. The Ld. Advocate submitted that there is a duty demand of Rs. 7,47,564/- approximately and an equivalent amount of penalty has been imposed under Section 114(A) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The redemption fine of Rs. 2,20,000/- has been imposed and a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- each has been imposed on Dr. S.M.S. Mody and Shri J.F. Boga under Section 112(a) of the said Act. The Counsel submitted that the appellant is a Charitable Public Trust, running a hospital specialized in treatment of Cardio-Vascular diseases. The appellant is a premier heart hospital in the city of Pune and has imparted from time to time sophisticated medical equipments, spares and accessories. The duty has been paid prior to issue of show cause notice dated 22.1.1998 and the period of import is 1993-94. The relevant Notification claiming the exemption is Notificatio...
Shri M.A. Shaikh Aboobucker Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC300
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs upon him under the impugned order of the Addl. Collector of Customs on the ground that he was involved in the smuggling of 400 gold biscuits valued at Rs. 1,60,00,000/- recovered on 9.10.90 from a secret cavity inside the Ambassador car bearing Registration No. MMF-7628 which was intercepted by police officers on 6.10.90 and searched on the same date.2. The brief facts are that in pursuance of information received that the appellant and his brother are regularly smuggling gold into India from ships berthed in the Harbour, the Customs officers searched the residential premises of both the brothers and office premises of M/s.Citizen Transport Company run by the appellant. No contraband was recovered from the residence of the appellant; electronic goods of foreign origin were recovered from the residence of his brother and electronic goods and one pistol and some cartridges of foreign origin were recovered from the...
Poysha Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT203Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are manufactures of metal containers falling under Chapter 72,73 & 85 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.The inputs for such manufacture are tinned M.S. Plates and Sheets. They procure these inputs either from the open market or from importers who import the material. The appellants clears the goods manufactured out of these inputs on payment of duty. The modvat credit taken on the inputs amounting to Rs. 45,44,658/- taken during the period April 1989 to December 1992, was denied by the Commissioner in the impugned order on two grounds which would be discussed presently. The Commissioner also imposed an equal amount of penalty under Rule 571 (4) of the Central Excise Rules 1944. Interest of 20% was also demanded under Rule 57I (5) of the same rules. Hence the appeal.2. The grounds for rejection are that the appellants has taken modvat credit on the strength of endorsed bills of entry and that modvat credit is availed of on the strength of gate pas...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »