Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982(10)ELT885(Bom)
1. In this miscellaneous petition a short but interesting question regarding the application of Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, arises. The said Rule has undergone slight changes and hence we will have to consider the rule as it stood when the petitioners applied for a refund of the amount of Rs. 77,587/- which they did in 1970. In order, however, to understand the nature of the petitioners' claim and in order to consider whether the same is required to be upheld or repelled, I may sate a few facts.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a company inter alia carrying on business as manufacturers and dealers in fertilizer mixtures. Petitioner No. 2 is its shareholder and Managing Director. I shall refer to Petitioner No. 1 hereinafter as 'the Company' for the sake of brevity.3. The Company manufactures granulated compound fertilizers and for the purposes of manufacture uses as raw material certain base fertilizers. These base fertilizers are manufactured by other persons and certain excise ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1984(2)BomCR67
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. These two petitions involve common questions of law and are based upon analogous facts. They are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment and order. For the sake of convenience, however, we will narrate the facts in Special Civil Application No. 93 of 1983. The petitioner in this case was admitted to the Goa Medical College for his M.B.B.S. Degree Course. He passed the first M.B.B.S. examination in November 1978, that is when he was due for the said examination. The second M.B.B.S. examination was to be held and was held in April 1980 and the petitioner appeared for the said examination and passed the same. The third M.B.B.S. examination was scheduled and was held in October/November 1981. The petitioner actually sent his application for being admitted to the examination, which application was granted. In fact he was admitted to appear for the said examination. According to the averments made in the petition, due to sickness the petitioner could not a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006CriLJ4266; 2006(5)MhLj690
J.N. Patel, J.1. The learned single Judge of this Court while dealing with the application filed by the accused seeking their release on bail on the ground that the prosecution has failed to submit charge-sheet under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code within the stipulated period i.e. within 60 days from the date of their arrest, was required to make a reference to the larger bench and this is how the matter has been assigned to us.2. The question which is referred to the Division Bench can be culled out from para 7 of the order which reads as under:7. There is, therefore, a clear conflict on the issue whether the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(i) is attracted or the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) are attracted in respect of the decisions of two learned single Judges of this Court on the one hand and the one learned single Judge of this Court on the other hand. Therefore, in my view, it would be appropriate if the matter is referred to the Division Bench. Neither the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3693
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Appeal admitted. Respondents waive service. 2. By consent of parties, heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 29th April 2009 in Arbitration Petition Lod. No. 366 of 2009. This Arbitration Petition was filed by the Appellant (Original Petitioner) invoking powers of the Learned Single Judge under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Act for short). 4. From the record it appears that the learned Judge initially granted an ad-interim ex parte order on 17th April 2009 in favour of the appellant original petitioner. This ad-interim order was continued after the respondent No. 1 (contesting respondent) appeared and sought time. Thereupon, the Arbitration Petition was placed before the learned Single Judge and he considered the request made by the appellant for co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(1)BomCR428; (2005)107BOMLR1088; 2006(2)MhLj356
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule heard forthwith.2. The petitioner had submitted his tender pursuant to tender notice dated 7th March, 2005. One other tenderer was respondent No. 5, who had applied as proprietor of Samsal Telecom. One of the conditions of the tender was Clause 3(v), which reads as under:'5(v) Contractor/company should submit a certificate of registration from competent authority. Contractor/company should submit necessary document/certificates satisfying above conditions duly attested by the Gazetted office at the time of purchasing of tender. No tender will be issued otherwise.'The tender booklet under the head instructions for the tenderer under item No. 6 provided as under:'6 Dealer Possession Licence:- Tender should have a valid dealer Possession License (DPL) for minimum of 100 sets.' 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the he has been doing the work of maintenance which is the subject matter of the present tender since June, 2001 for the respondent authorities. He ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1967)IILLJ177Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. On 4 June 1962, Hussainsab Doddamani, who was a brakes man in the Southern Railway, was involved in a railway accident between Kundgol and Saunshi stations and died. The Divisional Superintendent, Southern Railway, Hubli, deposited a sum of Rs. 3,500 in the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation; Dharwar, for payment of compensation to the dependents of the deceased Hussainsab. The appellant before us, who is the widow of Hussainsab, submitted her claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation both on her own behalf as well as on behalf of her children in January 1963. 2. But there was also a claim made by the widow for payment of compensation under S. 82A of the Indian Railways Act in the Court of the ex-officio Claims Commissioner and Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwar, who made an order on February 16, 1963, that the railway administration should pay the compensation of a sum of Rs. 8,000 to the widow of the deceased Hussainsab. It is s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002CriLJ1362; ILR2002KAR1427; 2002(2)KarLJ548
Mohamed Anwar, J.1. Brijesh Singh, petitioner in Cr. P. No. 2571 of 2001, is A-l in Crime No. 12 of 2001 of Ulsoorgate Women's Police Station booked against him and his four relatives for the offences under Section 498-A read with Section 109, under Section 506 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. on the complaint of his wife Smt. Sharmila. lodged with the police on 11-6-2001. He has filed the petition under Section 439(l)(b) of the Cr. P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 26-7-2001 in Cr. R.P. No. 218 of 2001 passed by the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.2. Petitioner in Cr. P. No. 2639 of 2001 is the said Smt. Sharmila Brijesh Singh, wife of petitioner in Cr. P. No. 2571 of 2001. She has filed her petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. against the State by Ulsoorgate Police, her husband Brijesh Singh and two others with a prayer to set aside the order dated 12-7-2001 of the 6th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bang...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR2420
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a decree holder's revision against the order dated 10-12-1981 passed by the Munsiff, Harapanahalli, in Execution Case No. 108 of 1981 ordering the re-transmission of the execution of the decree to the court of the Civil Judge at Davanagere, which had transferred the decree to it for execution.2. The decree holder had obtained a decree in S.C. No. 176/78 against the judgment debtor in the court of the Civil Judge, Davanagere. The said decree was transferred by the court of the Civil Judge, Davanagere, to the court of the Munsiff, Harapanahalli. The Munsiff, Harapanahalli, held that the Munsiff at Harapanahalli had not got the same small cause powers as those of the Civil Judge at Davanagere. Therefore, the transferee Court was not a Court competent to entertain and hear and try the small cause suit filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Davanagere, and decreed by it. Therefore taking this narrow view of the matter, he ordered the re-transmission of the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004CriLJ4798; I(2005)DMC593
ORDERS.B. Majage, J. 1. A short but an important point which arises for consideration, is, 'whether an accused is entitled to bail, if investigation is not completed and charge-sheet is not filed within 60 days from the date of his arrest when he is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 306 or 304-B of IPC?'2. Facts which gave rise to the said point, are :The petitioner-accused No. 1 was produced before the learned Magistrate on 5-4-2004 in Crime No. 38/2004 of Shivajinagar Police Station at Bangalore, alleging that he and another accused (accused No. 2) committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and consequently, he was remanded to judicial custody. That custody was extended from time to time. However, charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days from the date of his remand. So, on 25-6-2004, the petitioner/ accused No. 1 filed an application under Section 167 of Cr. P.C. requesting for his release on bail on that ground. Thereafter, on hear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2006(4)KarLJ707
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Legal Representatives of Sri B. Bava are before this Court challenging the order dated 25.10.1978 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore in this writ petition.2. Petitioner late Bava was in possession and enjoyment of 5 cents of land in Survey No. 25B-1A of Battaya Koppala of Maloor village. He was residing in a farmhouse situated in the land in question for several years. Respondent No. 3, now deceased, filed an application for registration of occupancy rights in respect of Survey No. 25B, measuring 25 cents. Respondent No. 3 claimed 5 cents of land which was in possession of the petitioner. Petitioner applied only for 5 cents along with the farmhouse which was in his possession. An application was filed before the Land Tribunal, and the Land Tribunal without issuing notice to the petitioner granted occupancy rights in favour of Respondent No. 3. The said order was challenged in this Court in Writ Petition No. 16801 of 1983. In the light of constitution of the ...
Tag this Judgment!