Mumbai Court December 1981 Judgments
Khalil-ur-rehman Vs. Zafar-abid and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR305
R.S. Bhonsale, J.1. One Khalil-Ur-Rehman, original party No. 2 has filed this Criminal application challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla in Notice Case No. 661/N of 1981, directing the officer-in-charge of Kurla Police Station or any other officer deputed by him to draw a panchanama about the articles in the disputed premises, viz., Block No. D-11, 1st floor of Building No. 4, styled as 'Madhur' of the Bombay Taximen's Co-operative Housing Society, Lohia Nagar, Agra Road, Kurla, Bombay-400 070 and keep the premises under seal under section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The officer was also directed to submit report as soon as the premises were put under seal. This order was passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on September 8, 1981, against which the present petition is filed in this Court on September 10, 1981, i.e. immediately after two days. This Court, while admitting the petition, gran...
Tag this Judgment!Avinash Alias Tatyarao Martandarao Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR110
D.B. Deshpande, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.R.T.') confirming the finding of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the S.L.D.T.') dated 31st August, 1977 declaring the present petitioner to be an additional surplus holder to the extent of 12 acres 2 gunthas, the petitioner has come to this Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The material facts giving rise to this litigation are as follows.2. The petitioner filed his return as required by section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act'), to the Tahsildar, Sillod. It was in accordance with the amended Ceiling Act, which lowered the ceilings. The S.L.D.T. on 27-1-1976 declared that the petitioner was on a surplus holder to the extent of 17 acres 35 gunthas, but while delimiting the land, an area of only 16 acres...
Tag this Judgment!Riyasatbi Shaikh Jani and anr. Vs. Shaikh Jani Shaikh Kasam and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR156
D.B. Deshpande, J.1. Both these criminal revision application arise out of the same judgment by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangapur in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 2 to 1976 on his file and they arise out of the following facts.2. Initially, Riyasatbi (hereinafter referred to as 'the wife') filed an application for maintenance for herself and for daughter Najmabi (original petitioner No. 2) against Shaikh Jani (hereinafter referred to as 'the husband') at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month. It is not disputed that Riyasatbi and Shaikh Jani were married to each other and the marriage is still subsisting. The wife alleged that the relations between the couple were cordial for about five to six years after the marriage and thereafter the husband started ill-treating her on flimsy grounds. The wife further alleged that on one occasions the husband beat her so heavily with an iron rod that she was admitted to the hospital. She all...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Prabhudas Purshottamdas Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT112(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The petitioners manufacture chewing tobacco at Sholapur. They are liable to excise in respect thereof under item 4(II) 5 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. On 29th September, 1975 a price list furnished by the petitioners was approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Sholapur. On 10th March, 1976 the Superintendent, Central Excise, Sholapur, wrote to the petitioners that the said price list, originally approved under the category of price not exceeding Rs. 10.00 per kg., had been revised and approved under the category of price exceeding Rs. 10.00 per kg. effective from 1st October, 1975. The letter stated that the reasons for revising the assessable value and rate of duty were that, on scrutiny and investigation, it had been ascertained that gross weight had been considered instead of net weight and the price of the gunny bag had not been included. It may be noted in this connection that u...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Srinivasan and ors. Vs. D.M. Sukhtankar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom254; (1982)84BOMLR48
Chandurkar, J.1. This is a joint petition filed by one social worker in Municipal Ward No. 48 (Petitioner No. 1) a Municipal Councilor in Word No. 104 (Petitioner No. 2), the District President of the Janata Party, North Central Bombay (Petitioner No. 2) and the Secretary of the Samajwadi Mahila Sabha of Maharashtra State (Petitioner No. 4) and it is substantially directed at the action of the Municipal Commissioner (Respondent No. 1) in accepting the tender given by Respondent No. 2 M/s. Degremont international, on the footing that the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay must be deemed to have approved the Commissioner's proposal made to the Standing Committee recommending that the tender of M/s. Degremont international (hereinafter refereed to as 'Respondent No. 2') should be accepted.2. The facts which have given rise to this petition are not in dispute, Sealed tenders for the supply, delivery, erection and commissioning of the water supply plant at Pan...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Ramadevi Shri Nivas Ruja a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom391; (1982)84BOMLR399; 1982MhLJ377
Chandurkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the municipal corporation of Greater Bombay challenging the decision of a learned single judge of this court holding that respondent No.1 was entitled to apportionment of amount of compensation payable to the municipal corporation under the Land Acquisition Act in the ratio of 10:6 in view of t he decision of t his court in Dossibai Nanabhoy jijeeebhoy v. P. M. Bharucha : (1958)60BOMLR1208 .2. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The municipal corporation of Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the corporation') had certain plots available to be let out for building purposes on building lease. The practice of the corporation was to invite offers firstly to enter into an agreement to enter into a lease and then to execute the lease in respect of such plots. So far as the plot in question is concerned, respondent I wrote a letter to the municipal commissioner some time in 1956 offering 'to enter into an agreement in the terms set out in ...
Tag this Judgment!Msco (P) Limited Vs. S.D. Rane and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1981
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ434Bom
1. This Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order passed on March 27, 1978, by the 1st respondent who is the Presiding Officer of the 5th Labour Court. The petitioner, a private limited company, are carrying on the business of manufacture of hospital, pharmaceutical and laboratory equipments. On September 17, 1968, the petitioners appointed the 3rd respondent as a clerk. By a letter dated April 29, 1977, the petitioners terminated the services of the 3rd respondent with effect from May 3, 1977. The 2nd respondent-union took up the cause of the 3rd respondent and demanded that he should be reinstated in service. Ultimately, on August 19, 1977, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Admn), Bombay, by his order of the same date referred the dispute - with respect to the reinstatement of the 3rd respondent for adjudication to respondent for adjudication to respondent No. 1. After receipt of the order of reference, notices were issued by the office o...
Tag this Judgment!Kashinath Krishnaji Soman (Dr.) and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR197
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by a Single Judge of this Court dismissing a petition, being Writ Petition No. 476 of 1980, by which the appellants had challenged the appointment of respondent No. 4 in this appeal to the post of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner at Bombay. The Bombay Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation', is governed by the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The petition was filed on 26th of March, 1980. The appellants are also employees of the Corporation and at some stage they have also been appointed as Deputy Municipal Commissioners. The first respondent in the petition as well as before us is the Corporation while the second respondent was at all material times the Municipal Commissioner. The third respondent is the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, which is the body recommending the appointment of certain class of Municipal Office...
Tag this Judgment!Sheshdatta Ganesh Vs. Ganpat Revashankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR716
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. The petitioner was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff in suit, being Declaratory Suit No. 5693 of 1971, filed in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, purported to be one under section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act'. The parties will be referred to by their character in the trial Court itself instead of as petitioner and respondent. The question touching upon the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act has arisen in these proceedings and in the light of the judgment of this Court in Sarfarzali Nawabali Mirza v. Miss Maneck G. Burjorji Reporter, 78 Bom.L.R. 704, 1975 Bom.C.R. 450, the question is concluded and the disposal of this petition should not present any difficulty.2 The plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises and according to him one Gajadhar Ramavatar was the licensee. The plaintiff filed an ejectment Application u...
Tag this Judgment!Hiraman S/O Dhondu Bawane Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR187
S.W. Puranik, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant seeks to quash the order of conviction passed against him under section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentence of one year and fine of Rs. 100/- awarded to him by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. The appellant was tried prosecuted for the offence of rape before the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur vide Sessions Case No. 7/79 and the Sessions Judge held him guilty for the same offence and convicted as above by his judgment dated 26-6-1979 passed in Sessions Case No. 7/79.2. The prosecution case in brief was that one Parwati w/o Baburao resides at village Tembhurwani along with her husband and two minor daughters and a son. The said house has a partially closed Verandha known as Chapri and in front of it there is an open court-yard. On the other side of the court-yard, is the house of the accused Hiraman. It is alleged that on 1-12-1978 in the afternoon at about 12 noon, prosecutrix was in her house along with her two minor daughters. Her husband had...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »