Mumbai Court March 2005 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.
Panther Fincap and Management Services Ltd. Vs. Central Government Uni ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR84; [2006]134CompCas773(Bom); [2005]61SCL33(Bom)
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. Economic progress usher with it economic perversity such as the land scam, Petrol Pump scam, import export scam, Hawala scam, security scam, shares and stocks scam, bank scam etc. With the passage of time the method of committing these scams has been more involved and more complex and are woven into various webs. Thus as a colliery thereto investigations into such scams are also required to be more scientific, more intrinsic and more detailed with the help of the experts. Corporate frauds and corporate misconduct are also another facet of such scams. Companies are being floated and are disappearing into thin air making the common man poorer and poorer by thousands of crores of rupees. These 16 appeals are challenging an order passed by the company law board under which it has ordered an investigation into one of such alleged scams under section 237(b)(i) of the companies Act which is being known as Ketan Parekh - stock scam of 2001.2. Few facts dealing with the comple...
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation thru' the General Manager, BEST ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR692; [2006(108)FLR665]
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Respondent was engaged by the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) and, at the material time, was functioning in the substantive capacity of a Deputy Charge Engineer in the T/7 Grade. On 23rd June, 1995 the Respondent was allegedly caught red handed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau while accepting a bribe of Rs.600/- from a person who was dealing in garments. The complainant had reported the demand for a bribe to the Anti Corruption Bureau and a trap was laid on 23rd June, 1995. The Respondent was arrested and was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Mumbai, who ordered his release on bail. On 5th July, 1995, the Director General of the Anti-Corruption Bureau addressed a letter to the General Manager of the BEST Undertaking stating inter alia that the Respondent had been apprehended while accepting a bribe and that he had been arrested. On 26th June, 1995 the Respondent was placed under suspension. The order of suspension w...
Smita Ambalal Patel Vs. Ila VipIn Pandya and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR419; 2005(4)BomCR605; 2005(2)MhLj1118
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Ms. Patel, the appellant in person Mr. Doctor appears for respondent No. 1. Ms. Dutt appears for respondent No. 2.2. This appeal is filed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge on 23rd September, 2004 on Chamber Summons No. 1038 of 2004, which the appellant had taken out in Testamentary Suit No. 17 of 1996 wherein she is a caveatrix/defendant. The prayer in the chamber summons was two fold.(a) That the office be ordered and directed to furnish to the caveatrix/defendant in the Testamentary Suit No. 17 of 1996 certified copy of the Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2004 in the Testamentary Suit No. 17 of 1996 expeditiously;(b) That the office be ordered and directed to furnish to the caveatrix/defendant transcript of the two audio cassettes, in respect of the Tape-recorded telephonic conversation held on Saturday, February 7, 2004, between Ila V. Pandya (petitioner/plaintiff) and Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Advocate) filed in the Miscellaneous Application N...
Hitkari Fibres Ltd. Vs. Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR78
Mhatre Nishita, J.1. The order impugned is an interim order dated 1st February, 2005 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane below Application Exhibit U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No. 34 of 2005. The transfer order issued to the workman Gajanan Vedak who is a member of the respondent Union has been temporarily stayed. The complaint was filed by the Union on behalf of the workman under Items 3, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Union contended that the petitioner company has transferred the workman to M/s. Hitkari Hitech Pvt. Ltd. at Bangalore. The respondent has also contended that the employer had not disclosed that this was a sister concern at all and, therefore, the transfer of the workman to M/s. Hitkari Hitech Pvt. Ltd. was illegal besides being mala fide. The alleged mala fides have been stated in the pleadings in the complaint. The Industrial Court on a pr...
Ramchandra Gopal Belekar and anr. Vs. Commissioner, Amravati Division
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj546
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Both these writ petitions challenge the order dated 30-11-1992 passed by the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, in exercise of Revisional power under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act).2. The grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that provisions of Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act prescribe the limitation of three years from the date of declaration under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act and here the order passed by the Commissioner is about 8 years thereafter and there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the Commissioner applied his mind within a period of three years from the date of order of Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. As the order impugned is common and point being raised is common, both the petitions are taken up for hearing together. The parties were heard on 30-3-2005 and thereafter on 31-3-2005.3. The order of Surplu...
Sindhu Co-operative Housing Society Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR876; 2005(3)MhLj624
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Madkholkar, Advocate for the petitioner and Smt. Taiwade, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 to 3. Nobody appears for respondents No. 4 to 10.2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Society registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, challenges the order dated 11/26-4-1991 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (City) Nagpur, in Appeal under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By the impugned order, the said authority has allowed the appeal preferred by the present respondents No. 4 to 10 and directed the petitioner - Society to admit them as its members.3. Shri Madkholkar, Advocate for the petitioner has made three grievances in relation to impugned order. He contends that there cannot be any enrolment of members in excess of plots available with the society. He contends that at the re...
Anant Balaji Todkar and ors. Vs. Smt. Vijaya Ramkrishna Girde and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR880; 2005(4)MhLj90
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Writ Petition 4277 of 2004 is filed by decree holders Ananta and others against the respondent Vijaya and her husband Ramakrishna challenging the order dated 23-7-2004 passed by 15th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Misc. Civil Appeal number 118/2004 and Misc. Civil Appeal number 168/2004 whereby while dismissing the appeals filed by respondent Vijaya, the said Court has held that determination made in M.J.C. No. 62 of 2001 and confirmed in Misc. Civil Appeal number 118 of 2004 shall be subject to result of Regular Civil Suit No. 1421/1999. Respondent Vijaya also filed a Writ Petition on 16 December, 2004 challenging the very same judgment. Said Writ Petition was found containing certain objections and as the objections were not removed, ultimately office refused registration in it on 8 February, 2005. Thereafter on 23rd February, 2005 Vijaya filed Civil application 1278 of 2005 under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay in mov...
Vindhya Cast Coaters Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT464Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides and on considering the condonatin of delay application has been filed in appeals against an impugned order which covered three show cause notices and one separate appeals were required to be filed as per the directions of the Registrar. Delay in filing the two subsequent appeals is condoned following the practice in such cases by this Tribunal.2. After hearing, it is found that the issue involved in this case is interpretation of the clause used in paragraph 2 clause (iv) of notification 9/98 CE which uses the term "aggregate value of clearance of all excisable goods for home consumption by a manufacturer from one or more factories or from a factory by one or more manufacturers". This clause and term used, marked by does not use the words and terms "for and on behalf" as they were used in the notification No. 85/85, relied upon by the lower authorities following the decision in the case of CC, Bangalore v. Gammon Fan Chemicals Ltd. 3. In view of this marked...
G and K Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT251Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant is a Private Limited Company holding a Custom House Clearing Agent Licence. This matter was heard on an application being made since vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai it has been directed that the only documents presented in the Mumbai Custom House on or before 22.3.2005 would be allowed to be processed up to 6.4.2005 and not subsequently as the CHA Licence No. 11/98 held by G&K Shipping Pvt Ltd under the powers contained in Regulation 20 (2) of CHALR 2004, pending enquiry under Regulation 22 of the CHALR 2004, would be suspended, and that the appellant were not authorised to transact any business in the Mumbai Custom House, Airport, Docks, A.C.C or Nhava Sheva Custom House etc. It was also directed vide the impugned order that Identity Cards of all employees, along with the original Custom House Agents Licence No. 11/498 should be surrendered to the Custom House immediately. It was also notified that wherever the aforesaid CHA has stood and...
P.K. Biswal and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT62Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in both these cases being common, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants are 100% EOU registered in Surat, Gujarat and their Directors.3. Consignments declared to contain scarves were sought to be exported through ICD, Tuklakbad, New Delhi. On examination, the officers found that the valuation of scarf as given on the Shipping Bill filed by these two EOUs was very high and that the quality of the scarves was not of standard goods; they appeared to be cutting from saree materials. The report also found that the EOU have obtained certain yarn on CT3 certificates from manufacturers in India without payment of duty ostensibly to use in the manufacture of scarves. However, they had disposed of the yarn in the domestic marks.4. On inspection of the consignments, the EOUs immediately discharged the duty liabilities under the Central Excise law for having received the duty free yarn on CT3 for the manufacture in the EOU. The Customs authorities at De...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »