Mumbai Court April 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.
Hcl Ltd. Vs. Krishna Nanu Naik and Sons and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR305; 2005(4)MhLj719
Lavande A.P., J.1. Inspite of order dated 10-3-2005, issued for final disposal of the petition, the respondents have chosen not to put in appearance. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 222/93/111 before the Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Margao.2. Rule. The matter is taken up for final disposal in terms of order dated 10-3-2005. By this petition, the defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 222/93/ III, pending before the Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Margao, challenges the order dated 13-1-2005, dismissing the application filed by the defendant, seeking to rely upon and produce the documents mentioned in the application dated 1-10-1994, filed by the defendant.3. In Special Civil Suit No. 222/93/111, the defendant had filed an application dated 1-10-1994, seeking leave to rely upon documents mentioned in the said application and produce the same at the time of evidence. It appears that the said application was not ...
Manikchand Pukhraj Katariya Vs. Kumari Hirabai D/O Shivram Dudhwade an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC588; 2007ACJ118; 2005(3)ALLMR279; (2005)107BOMLR394
V.G. Munshi, J.1. Before proceeding with the merits of the case, points to be decided, etc., it is necessary to acquaint ourselves, with the facts of the case, with which we are concerned.On 25.7,1986, at about 2.30 p.m. in the noon, one goods vehicle-dumper, bearing R.T.O. No. MWA 3347, was passing by Nagar-Solapur road. It was loaded with about 200 bags of cement and the dumper was proceeding towards Navsarwadi. The said dumper was driven by the appellant (driver), Savleram Dipaji Shinde. It was owned by the appellant (owner), Manikchand Pukhraj Katariya and it was insured with the respondent (insurer), the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. One Shivram Devram Dudhwade was working as a labour on the said dumper on daily wages and one Bhanudas Maruti Mengade, was travelling by the said dumper, by paying hire charges Rs. 4/- to the driver. The said dumper crossed about 1 and 1/2 kms. distance and it was running with a speed of 60 to 65 kms. per hour. It was rashly and negligently driven b...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Cortalim Shipyard and Engin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: [2006]130CompCas295(Bom); [2006(106)FLR551]
N.A. Britto, J.1. This is a complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the accused.2. Shri V.S. Khatre who was the manager of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed a complaint under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short), against accused No. 1 which, according to him was an establishment under the Act having been allotted Code No. 32-28-67 and against accused No. 2 who was director and occupier of the said establishment named M/s. Cortalim Shipyard and Engineers P. Ltd.3. The complaint was filed for the failure to pay the contributions for the wage periods of October, 1992, to May, 1993, which were payable in terms of regulations 31, 39, and 40 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950.4. The complaint was filed after the sanction was accorded by the Regional Director of the said Corporation.5. Although the sanction was obtained to prosecute the principal employer, i.e., A2 and the said establishment M/s. Cortal...
Seagull Cooling Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT349Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These applications for stay arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi. In the impugned order the Commissioner confirmed Central Excise duty totally amounting to Rs. 1,80,95,730/- after deducting an amount of Rs. 9,29,921/- already paid by the appellant, imposed an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC on the appellant company and imposed penalties of Rs. 47,50,000/- each on the director and the authorised signatory of the company.2. The issue pertains to classification of excisable goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant company. According to the department the goods are classifiable as air conditioners, split air-conditioners, windows air conditioners, etc. whereas the appellants the claim that what they clear only parts of air conditioners of various capacities and size and models and not complete air conditioners. To buttress their argument that what are being cleared by them are only parts of a air conditioners, the appellants relied on the ...
Dharampal Seth Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC166
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant No. 2 Shri Dharampal Seth being aggrieved by the order dated 7.7.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II.Mumbai on Exhibit No. 30 in Original Application No. 2440/2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellant for striking off his name, in individual capacity, as defendant from the cause title and for not permitting the applicant Bank to carry out amendment as "Dharampal Seth H.U.F." 2. I have heard Mr. Sharath Pai for the appellant and Mr. Nasikwala for the respondent Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings and in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.3. Proceedings reveal that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in their written statement filed on 7.8.1991, when the matter was in the High Court, had contended that the defendant No. 2 HUF (and not as a person) was a partner in the firm of defendant No. 1. When ...
Udaysing Shamrao Chavan Vs. Ratnakar Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: I(2007)BC176
1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 14th October, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune on exhibit No. 36 in Original Application No. 104/2003. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellant that necessary directions be given to the applicant Bank to apply one lime settlement guidelines and settle the alleged dues of Rs. 29,25,661/- in 4 six monthly instalments.2. I have heard Mr. Matkar for the appellant and Mr. Bhagwat for the respondent No. 1 Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer.3. Contention of the appellant is that he had filed an application for one time settlement before the applicant Bank but applicant Bank was not considering the same. It is submitted that the scheme of on...
Kanwar Vilas Raj Nath and anr. Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR39; IV(2005)BC343; 2005(5)BomCR302; [2005]127CompCas427(Bom); 2005(3)MhLj913
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Chagla, Senior Advocate in support of this petition.2. The petition challenges an order of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ('DRAT') on two Miscellaneous Appeals arising out of two Miscellaneous Applications filed by the petitioners herein to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) to seek a direction for One Time Settlement (OTS). These applications having been rejected, the two appeals bearing Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 358 and 360 of 2003 were carried to the DRAT. The DRAT has dismissed both these appeals by a common order passed on 4th November 2004 which is impugned in the present petition. These Miscellaneous Applications were made in the original application filed by the respondent-Bank which are pending for final disposal. The writ petition is against an order on Appeal from interlocutory order.3. The question which arises in these appeals is with respect to the coverage of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular of 29th January 2003 which modifies t...
Bombay Electric Supply and Transport (Best) Undertaking Vs. State of M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: [2005]140STC308(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This reference arises out of the common judgment and order dated July 30, 2004, passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai, in R.A. No. 37 of 2004 filed by M/s. Bombay Electric Supply & Transport (BEST) undertaking (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') and R.A. No. 47 of 2004 filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the CST'). By the said judgment and order, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions for decision of this Court under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, namely :1. At the instance of the assesses in R.A. No. 37 of 2004. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and upon true and correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 22(5A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was liable to pay tax on the impugned sales of discarded materials connected with the appellant's transport activity, when in fact, qua this transport activi...
Lourdes Chandrahas Shetty (Mrs.) and anr. Vs. Vishal Konkan Co-operati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR881; 2005(4)BomCR41; 2005(3)MhLj320
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocates for the petitioners and respective respondents. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :--Respondent No. 1 is the Co-op. Housing Society. Petitioner No. 1 was the chairman and petitioner No. 2 was the secretary of the society. They were legally bound to convene General Body Meeting, therefore, they called General Body Meeting of respondent No. I/society for the year 2000-01 on 4-8-2001. Accordingly, the meeting was held on that day. Subject on the Agenda was discussed but the meeting could not proceed further because of chaotic condition or situation created by some members and, therefore, the meeting was called off. Two letters thereafter were sent by the petitioners to respondent No. 2 to depute somebody so that meeting could be successfully or peacefully held. But no steps were taken by respondent No. 2. Thereafter the meeting was called by the petitioners on 10-11-2001. All the remaining subjects were discussed on that day.2. H...
Sunil S/O Banwarilal Loiya Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR864; 2005(6)BomCR419; 2005(3)MhLj524
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, purchaser of immovable property W. P. No. 1437 of 1993 decided on 12-4-2005. (Nagpur) challenges the notices dated 12-5-1993, 20-7-1993 and provisional order dated 27-9-1993, passed by the respondent No. 2, provisionally determining the valuation of the agricultural field property purchased by him to be Rs. 1,12,500/-and demanding total stamp duty with penalty and other over heads totalling to Rs. 6,860/-.2. The petitioner states that on 10-11-1986, he purchased agricultural land ad-measuring 2.25 Acres out of field survey No. 199/200 of mouza Kanhan-Pipri, Tahsil Parseoni, District Nagpur, for consideration of Rs. 2250/-. It is his case that, the entire survey number has bigger area admeasuring 4.33 A, and it was purchased by his vendor Shriram Pandurang Tiwade on 8-6-1984 for Rs. 5000/-. He contends that on 15-9-1992, he received a notice from the respondent No. 2, where...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »