Mumbai Court December 1981 Judgments
Hind Construction and Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom365; (1982)84BOMLR147
Chandurkar, J.1. This Judgment will dispose of Appeals Nos, 273 & 274 of 1976. Both these appeals arise out or two judgment delivered by Lentin J. In two Award Petitioners which were filed by the Appellant Company, hereinafter referred to as the Contractor for setting aside two Awards, dt. 14th Feb., 1974 arising out of disputes between the Contractor and the Union of India, the Respondent herein, in respect of a contract of construction for the development of the Naval Dockyard at Bombay, for which the tender of the Contractor was accepted by the Government of India. In view of the limited challenge to the two Awards, both in the trial Court as well as in this Court, it is not necessary to set out in detail the events which led to the contract of construction. It is sufficient to state that in connection with the scheme for the development of the Bombay Harbour in or about 1952, the Government of India had entered into an arrangement with a concern known as 'Sir Alexander Gibb and Par...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarrao Abasaheb Pawar and Another Vs. L.V. Jadhav and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1981
Reported in: 1983(85)ARBLR44(Bom); 1982(1)BomCR352
ORDER1. The two accused in Criminal Case No. 16340 of 1980 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (Anti-Corruption) Court, Pune have filed this petition for quashing the said Criminal proceedings as also the order of issuing process against the petitioners passed in that case. It would be convenient to give in brief the allegations made by respondent No. 1 (who is a complainant in the above mentioned case) while filing the above mentioned criminal case under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Petitioner No. 1 is the father of petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 1 has a daughter by name Anita. She is a Graduate in Science, while petitioner No. 2 is an Engineering double Graduate working in United States. Respondent No. 1 wanted to marry his daughter, and he learnt that petitioner No. 2 also intended to marry. After some preliminary talks, the bride and bridegroom approved each other and an engagement ceremony took place o...
Tag this Judgment!Mario Miranda Vs. Pilot Bunder Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR186
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1.This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeks to challenge the order of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Bombay by which he decided that the dispute raised by respondent No. 1 is a dispute within the meaning of section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Societies Act.' The Assistant Registrar who gave that decision on 13th of May, 1981 is jointed as the third respondent in this petition while the Third Co-operative Court established under section 91A of the Societies Act has been joined as the fourth respondent. The second respondent in the petition is a member of the first respondent society and it is he who, according to the allegations made in the dispute, inducted the petitioner in one of the flat in the society.2. It is not necessary for me to refer to the details of the dispute between the parties because the challenge in this petition is confined to the manner in wh...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra S/O Tukaram Choudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR205
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 4 years by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Case No. 67/78 decided on 18-9-1979.2. The allegation of the prosecution was that on 28-6-1978 at village Warud the appellant had stabbed one Pralhad Govinda Chavan with a knife in order to cause his death.3. The relevant facts of the prosecution case may be narrated briefly in order to understand the circumstances under which the impugned incident took place.4. One Chimanaji Sambhaji Gawande had owned agricultural land and house at village Warud. His first wife Walambi died without any issue. He then married Ambabai from whom he had two daughters. He then re-married one Parvata who was already having six sons living from her first husband. The present appellant Ramchandra is the son of Parvata from her first husband. After Parvata's marriage with Chi...
Tag this Judgment!Svadeshi Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT237(Bom)
Sharad Manohar, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioners who are the manufacturers of automobile-windscreens, serving as parts and accessories of Motor Vehicles, are calling in question the validity and legality of the order passed by respondent No. 4, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune, by which order respondent No. 4, upon advice of the Central Board of Excise and Customs has held that the windscreens manufactured by the petitioner-company are liable to be charged with duty under entry No. 23A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and not under entry No. 34A thereof which deals with motor vehicles parts and accessories.2. The facts that have been referred to in the petition are several but it is really unnecessary to refer to each of them in this judgment. It is enough to state the few relevant facts which are as follows :As stated above, the petitioner-company manufactures automobile windscreens, both flat and curved, and sells them as parts and accessories of mot...
Tag this Judgment!Air India Corporation Vs. Richard Rashid Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1981
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ125Bom
Chandurkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by Mukhi, J., allowing the respondent's petition for quashing the order of removal made by the Gebral Manager of Air-India, the appellant No. 1, removing the respondent from service with effect from the date of the order.2. The respondent was a Deputy Director of Operations in the employment of Air-India. A proceeding was taken against him by the Additional Collector of Customs of Customs for violation of provision of the Customs Act, the Import (Control) Order of 1955 and a notification dated 21st February, 1963 issued u/s 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, on the footing that 247 diamonds valued at Rs. 1,50,000, some drafts and cheques for Dollars 415.90 were found in a coat in his possession and that foreign currency of Dollars 91 was seized from the room of the respondent in the Sun-N-Sand Hotel where he was staying. By the same order dated 9th September, 1970 the Additional Collector of Customs ordered that all t...
Tag this Judgment!Sardarkhan Rahimkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR319
R.S. Bhonsale, J.1. The appellant-accused was charged and tried for having committed offences punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced on each of the counts to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one you and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar, who tried the accused had dealt exhaustively the prosecution cases as well as defence and has scrutinised the evidence at great length, in paragraphs 3 to 11. The learned trial Judge has stated the prosecution case in details. In my view, it is not necessary to reproduce all these details in this judgment except to refer to very briefly, the salient features of the prosecution came.3. The main charge against the accused in the trial Court was that he accepted an ...
Tag this Judgment!Mary D' Souza Vs. Domnic John D'Souza, since deceased through his heir ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR171; (1982)84BOMLR89
R.D. Jahagirdar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decree of eviction passed against the petitioner by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in R.A.E. Suit No. 777/5781 of 1967 and confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the same Court in Appeal No. 463 of 1975. A somewhat curious development took place during the course of this litigation and that needs to be mentioned.2. The suit was originally filed by two plaintiffs in the year 1967 against the petitioner on various grounds, one of which was that the petitioner has committed a breach of the condition of the tenancy by providing accommodation in the suit premises to persons who are called the paying guests. The suit premises consist of four rooms and a kitchen in a building situated on Plot No. 127-A at Bandra in Bombay. It may be mentioned at this stage that the suit premises were originally tenanted by one Noel D'Souza, the son of the present petitioner. After his death and with the c...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Muktaji Dhage and Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR132
D.B. Deshpande, J.1. Originally five land acquisition references were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Nanded, but in these two first appeals, we are concerned only with two references, namely Land Acquisition Reference No. 27 of 1976, out of which First Appeal No. 195 of 1979 arises, and the second Land Acquisition Reference is No. 28 of 1976, out of which First Appeal No. 196 of 1979 arises, and they arise out of the following facts.2. The date of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in both appeals is 11-11-1971. The acquisition in both appeals is for the purposes of change of the village location of village Yeli in Kandhar Tahsil of Nanded District. In Land Acquisition reference No. 27 of 1976, Survey No. 18 admeasuring 82 acres assessed at Rs. 3/- and Survey No. 19 admeasuring 40 acres assessed at Rs. 1.50 p. are acquired. In Land Acquisition Reference No. 28 of 1976, Survey No. 20...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukar Deuba Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR214
S.W. Puranik, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the concurrent findings of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur, and Sessions Judge, Buldana whereby the applicant was convicted of the offence under section 408 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in defaulter further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The prosecution case alleged that the applicant was working as Manager in a registered Co-operative Society run under the name and style Dharangaon Multipurpose Co-operative Society at village Dharangaon, taluka Malkapur district, Buldana. The applicant was working as its Manager in the year 1969. One Bhagwan Nemade (P.W. 1) was the Special Auditor of Co-operative Societies and he had conducted the audit of the same Society for the period 1-1-1969 to 31-12-1969. In the said audit he found that on 14-1-1969 a sum of Rs. 350/- was paid as temporary advance to one Waman Hari as per the account books and a sum of Rs. 105...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »