Mumbai Court January 1970 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.
Shri Ramdas G. Patil Vs. General Manager Best Undertaking
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR414; 2000(3)BomCR152; [2000(86)FLR180]; 2000(2)MhLj129
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a conductor under the respondents Undertaking for a period of about seven years. On 29-12-1984 an incident took place in the Bus which he was conducting. It was alleged against him that he had assaulted a lady passenger viz. Smt. Ranjana S. Mane. A charge sheet was served on him on 4-3-1985 calling upon him to explain the charges. He, however, did not submit his written explanation to charges denying of explaining the incident. The respondent held a domestic enquiry and found him guilty of the misconduct alleged against him and finally he was dismissed from employment by an order dated 9-7-1985. Against the said order his internal appeal was also dismissed.2. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal he filed an application under section 79 r/w section 78 and 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act') to challenge the propriety and legality of the impugned dismissal order. At ...
Rama Rau Mang @ Awale (Deceased by Heirs Smt. Manjula Rama Mang @ Awal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR319; 2005(1)MhLj977
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgments and Orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur dated January 28, 1981 in Revision Application No. MRT.KP.301/79 and June 16, 1984 in Revision Application Nos. MRT-KP-3/1984 and MRT-KP-4/1984. The land in question is Survey No. 1410/A of Village Karveer in Karveer Tahsil of Kolhapur District admeasuring 8 acres 21 gunthas. The total area of the land bearing said Survey number was 9 acres 38 gunthas, but in the present Petition, we are concerned only with land admeasuring 8 acres 21 gunthas owned by the Respondents herein. it is not in dispute that the said land was used for sugar-cane cultivation and is therefore covered by the special provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Application was filed by the landlords herein for fixation of reasonable rent in respect of the suit land under Sectio...
Ntpc Limited (Formerly National thermal Power Corporation Limited, a C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR164
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The parties have no objection if this Bench decides the chamber summons finally.2. The plaintiffs' suit is for declaration that there exists a valid and concluded and binding contract (Exhibits D, E, F and G) between the parties and also for a decree of specific performance of the contract. The averments and the documents revolve around the alleged contract of supply of gas by the defendants.3. This Chamber summons dated 6.2.2009 is taken out by the defendants to amend the written statement dated 31.10.2007. The issues are framed on 6.10.2008. The plaintiffs have filed an affidavit in chief of its first witness on 9.1.2009. The Suit is fixed for cross-examination. The trial has commenced.4. Once the plaintiffs lead the evidence in chief and the case is fixed for cross-examination, it is a commencement of the trial. The Apex Court in Vidyabai and Ors. v. Padmalatha and Anr. : AIR2009SC1433 , in paragraph 8 has observed in this regard as under:8. ...The question, the...
Smt. Durgabai W/O Dattajirao Ghatge (Since Deceased by the Following H ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR370; 2004(4)MhLj938
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. The principal question that needs to be addressed in the present Petition is: what was the holding of the Petitioner landlady on the date when she made application for possession under Section 33B read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 27th January 1965. It is not in dispute that exemption certificate under Section 88C of the Act has been issued in favour of the Petitioner on 30th October 1964. On the basis of that Certificate, the Petitioner filed application for possession of the suit land from the Respondents tenants on 27th January 1965. The First Authority, after several remands, have eventually found, as of fact, that the Petitioner landlady was not in possession of any agricultural land on the date of application i.e. 27th January 1965. For reaching at this conclusion, the Authority has analysed the evidence on record, both documentary as well as oral. Indeed) it has referred to t...
The State of Maharashtra (Sub-divisional Officer, Vs. Ganesh Sakharam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR84
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The State of Maharashtra issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the `Act' on 18th February, 1998 intending to acquire large strip of land from the revenue estate of village Chapet, Taluka Welhe, District- Pune. This land was sought to be acquired for the public purpose viz. Gunjwani Project. Declaration in furtherance to which under Section 6 was issued on 6th August, 1998. After following the prescribed procedure, the Special Land Acquisition Officer exercising the powers of the Collector under the provisions of the Act made his award dated 1st November, 1999 awarding compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per hectare to the Jirayat lands while granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per hectare in the case of Bagayat lands. The claimants preferred references under Section 18 of the Act which in turn were referred to the court of competent jurisdiction. The partie...
Cds Financial Services (Mauritius) Limited, a Body Corporate Incorpora ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: [2004]121CompCas374(Bom); [2004]56SCL665(Bom)
Shah, J.1. The appellant is the originalplaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff isaggrieved by the impugned order passed by thelearned single Judge declining to grant to theplaintiff an ad-interim order of injunctionrestraining defendant nos.1 to 8 and 13 to 17from taking steps in implementation of theagreement dated 27.6.2001 without obtaining theapproval of the shareholders of defendant no.1Company under sec. 293(1)(a) of the Companies Actand from giving effect to the Resolution dated25.7.2001 passed by the Board of Directors pursuantto the said agreement and further from in anymanner interfering with the exercise of votingrights by the plaintiff of its preference shares. 2. On the request of the learnedcounsel for the parties, considering the factsand circumstances of the case, we have taken up fordecision the Notice of Motion in the suit for grantof interim injunction instead of only consideringthe question of grant of ad-interim injunction.In order to appreciate the rival contentions...
Indian Drugs Manufacturer's Association, A Society registered under th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 2006(112)ECC49; 2006LC49(Bombay); 2008(222)ELT22(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This petition is filed to challenge the validity of circular No. 813 dated 25/4/2005 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Government of India, New Delhi ( 'Board' for short). By the said circular the Board has clarified that the valuation of physicians free samples should be made under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation (determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 ('2000 rules' for short) and not under Rule 11 read with Rule 8 of 2000 Rules as stated in its earlier circular No. 643 dated 1/7/2000. 3. The main argument of the petitioners is that the physicians samples cleared from the factory are not sold but are supplied freely to the medical practitioners and, therefore, the valuation of physicians free samples have to be made by applying the method applicable to the goods which are not sold. It is ...
Mr. Joao Cardoso Son of Late Silvestre Cardoso (Deceased) Represented ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR51
N.A. Britto, J.1. This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal and is arising from R.C.S.2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said Civil Suit.3. The dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants is regarding division of a property which their father Silvestre Cardoso had purchased by deed dated 1-3-1974, after the death of their mother. The property was originally admeasuring 666 sq. meters but what is presently available for division is 246 sq. meters; 222 sq. meters having been sold to defendant No. 1 by the said Silvestre Cardoso by deed dated 8-5-1974, 185 sq. meters having been acquired by the Government in the year 1995 and 13 sq. meters having been left out by defendant No. 1 for private access. After the purchase of 222 sq. meters by deed dated 8-5-1974 defendant No. 1 has constructed his house.4. The case of the plaintiffs was that each of them were entitled to 1/6th share and defendant No. 1 was entitled to 4/6th share in t...
Vithhal Dhondiba Chawan (Died) (Through Lrs. Rajaba W/O Vithhalrao Cha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR29; 2009(111)BomLR3258
S.S. Shinde, J.1. The present civil application is filed for condonation of delay in filing civil application for bringing Legal Representatives of deceased appellant Vitthal Chavan on record, who died on 30th October, 1999. There is delay of 2945 days in filing the application.2. It is the case of the applicants that the original appellant being Karta of the family, was looking after the affairs of the family including the proceedings of the second appeal. During pendency of the second appeal, the present applicants 2 and 3 were minor and applicant No. 1 being an illiterate lady, residing in village, was not aware about pendency of second appeal before this Court.It is further case of the applicants that on or about 15th November, 2004, they received a letter from the Advocate Shri C.V. Korhalkar addressed to the original appellant late Vithal Chavan. The applicants came to know about the pendency of second appeal, they came to Aurangabad and contacted the concerned Advocate and infor...
Smt. Shantabai Ramlal Pardeshi (Since Deceased by Her Following Heirs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR485; 2008(2)MhLj422
V.M. Kanade, J.1. This is an application for restoration of the writ petition which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 12th September, 2007. For reasons stated in para 3 of the application, the writ petition is restored to the file. Writ Petition is taken up for hearing.2. The petitioner is challenging judgment and order passed by the IIIrd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, in Civil Suit No. 1776/1977 whereby the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the premises which were given on lease to the petitioner was decreed on the ground that the petitioner was a defaulter within the meaning of Section 12(3)(a) and decree for eviction was passed by the trial Court. The petitioner had challenged this judgment and decree by filing an appeal before the District Judge, Pune. The District June, confirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of...