Mumbai Court June 1983 Judgments
Shri Seetha Mahalakshmi Rice and Groundnut Oil Mills. Vs. Rajesh Tradi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom486
ORDER1. The Civil Suit No. 228 of 1982 filed by the present non-applicant 1 on 12-2-1982 against the present applicant and the non-applicant 2 is pending on the file of the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagpur, while O. S. NO. 65 of 1982 field by the present applicant in the month of July 1982 against the non- applicant 1 is pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gudivada (A. P.) Both these suits arise out of a transaction of sale of 42-bags of groundnut by this applicant to the non-applicant No. 1 through the brokerage of non-applicant 2. Admittedly, non-applicant 1 took the delivery of the goods at Nagpur, sent by this applicant from Gudivada. The price of the goods retained by non-applicant 1 is yet to be paid to the applicant.2. The applicant by the present application made under Section 22 read with Section 23(3) Civil P. C., prays that the suit filed against him and pending in the Court at Nagpur be transferred to Gudivada where his own suit is pending for decision...
Tag this Judgment!The Dean, G.S. Medical College and anr. Vs. Samina Suhel Khatib and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom459; 1983(85)ARBLR437(Bom); 1983MhLJ771
Chandurkar, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal filed by the Deam, G. S. Medical College, and the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay was referred to this Full Bench as a question of general importance affecting a large number of medical students seeking admission to the post-graduate medical courses in a college run by the Municipal Corporation, was involved. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge who has taken the view that the rules in question which give a preference to the students of a medical college belonging to the Corporation for the purposes of admission to the post-graduate medical course in that college are bad on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. While arriving at this conclusion, the learned single Judge has followed a decision of the District Bench of this Court given at Nagpur in Dr. Satish B. Deopujari v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petn. No. 1974 of 1981 decided on 11-12-1981 (hereinafter referr...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Power Build Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1193DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 by the Asstt. Collector (Legal) Central Excise, Baroda, against the order No. A-1735/BD-691/82, dated 4-11-1982 of the Collector Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay under which the respondent's appeal for refund of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 15,808/- was allowed. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise (Legal) Baroda has been authorised by the Collector of Central Excise Baroda to file the present appeal. The respondents in the present appeal M/s. Power Build Ltd. have also filed a cross objection against the same order dated 4-11-1982 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. Hence, both the appeal and the cross-objection have been heard together for the purpose of passing a common order.2. Shri Pattekar on behalf of the appellant, the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda has explained the facts of the case and argued that the order dated 4-11-1982 of the Collector of Central E...
Tag this Judgment!Rakhamabai W/O Madhavrao Misal and ors. Vs. Asruba Dajiba Wanve and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR383
D.B. Deshpande, J. 1. The only question in this second appeal is whether the plaintiffs have a right of pre-emption in respect of the suit land. Both the courts below have held that the plaintiffs have such a right and, therefore, the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs confirmed by the lower Appellate Court by dismissing the appeal. This appeal arises out of the following facts.2. Survey No. 126 of village Patoda in Beed District originally belonged to defendant No. 6. The total area of the land is 9 acres 29 gunthas. Defendant No. 6 sold the entire land to plaintiffs, to defendant Nos. 2 to 5 together and to Manik Hari, father of defendant Nos. 7 and 8 by a registered sale Deed dated 24th April, 1957. According to the plaintiffs themselves, the entire land was being cultivated jointly by all the persons. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No. 2 had four annas share whereas plaintiff No. 1, defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and Manik Hari each had two annas share ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Shanti Shankar (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR298
Sharad Manohar, J.1. One of the most anomalous contentions has been raised by the Public Prosecutor in this criminal appeal against the accused. A mere statement of facts is enough to disclose the anomalous character of the contention.2. The three respondents before me were the three accused in the trial Court. They were prosecuted for the offence of being in possession of railway property namely, bearing plates. The allegation, therefore, was that they had committed offence under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. The case of the prosecution in short was that accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before me had stolen the railway property and had sold the same to accused No. 3, who is respondent No. 3 before me. A charge-sheet was filed by the police against the three accused, charge was framed against them by the learned Magistrate and evidence was led by the prosecution. No independent evidence could be adduced by the prosecution to prove tha...
Tag this Judgment!Kerba Bhivaji Shinde Vs. Salubai W/O Nagorao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR606; 1983MhLJ1009
M.P. Kanade, J.1. By an order dated December 13, 1982, S.J. Deshpande, J, directed that the Writ petition No. 3352, Writ petition No. 2060/1981, First Appeal No. 137/1979 and First Appeal No. 419/1979 be heard together not later than March 1983. Writ Petition No. 2060/1981 was not connected matter with the other three matters and, therefore, it was independently heard and disposed of by this Court. The rest of the three matters are heard together. However, it is advisable to dispose of these three matters by separate judgment.2. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-Kerba Bhivaji Shinde who claims to be a tenant of Land Survey No. 2 (2-A) admeasuring 12 acres and 13 gunthas situated at village Rohi-Pimpalgaon, Taluka and District Nanded, challenged the order passed by the learned member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, dated Occupier 12, 1981, whereby it is held that the application against the landlord would not be maintainable under secti...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Yeshwant Mate Vs. Amita Ashok Mate (Sou.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR301
Sharad manohar, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the husband against the order directing to pay maintenance of Rs. 200/- to his wife, the original applicant, in the proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Rs. 100/- each to the two children. The order to this effect was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the same was confirmed by the Sessions Court in the revision application.When this writ petition was filed, Rule was issued by the Court only on the question of quantum of maintenance. The question as to whether the petitioner is at all liable to pay maintenance to his wife and children or not is, therefore, no more open for the petitioner to urge.2. The question relating to the quantum of maintenance payable by the present petitioner has been considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Para 16 of his judgment. He has found that the present petitioner is working in the Security Press at Nasik. A salary-slip relating to the income of th...
Tag this Judgment!Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1198DTri(Mum.)bai
1. These are 9 appeals filed under Section 129-A of the Customs Act by the appellants against the Orders of the lower authorities under which penalties have been levied on the appellants under Section 116 of the Customs Act for not accounting for the manifested cargo imported by the ships under their agency. Though the facts of each case difer, the principle underlining the appeal is the same and hence the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of under this common order, in these cases shortages were reported against the manifested items by the Bombay Port Trust's out-turn reports of the respective vessels or they were discovered on survey held by the consignees. In either case the liability of the appellants under Section 116 was enforced and penalties levied and confirmed under the respective orders of the lower authorities. In the appeals the arguments put for ward by the appellants are that the cargoes imported in all the cases were containerised and the containers we...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Rajabali HussaIn Merchant Vs. Gold Control Administrator
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1201DTri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Rajabali Hussain Merchant has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the Order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals; Bombay vide Order No. S/49-23/82 GC (Ahmedabad) dated 19.11.82, registered with the registry vide G.C. Bom) A. No. 15 of 1983. Shri Dinkarrai R. Dhorde had also filed an appeal before the Tribunal being aggrieved from the Order No. S/49-25,82 GC Ahmedabad) dated 9.11.82 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 24.10.1977, on the basis of an information, the officers of Customs Division, Bhavnagar had visited Room No. 304 of Shri Shakti Guest House, Mali Tehra, Bhavnagar and found S/Shri Rajabali Hussain Merchant and Dinkerrai Ramchhoddas Dhorde to be in occupancy of the said room and had conducted search in presence of three independent witnesses, as a result of which they recovered four pieces of primary gold weighing 576.-00 gms. of 23 carats of purity valued at Rs. i6,500/- secreted in a specially...
Tag this Judgment!Avinash Madhukar Mukhedkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR791; 1983CriLJ1833; 1984MhLJ88
ORDER1. This criminal writ petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') challenging the legality and correctness of the order dt. July 13, 1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane.2. By this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the maintainability of the criminal prosecution launched against him under Section 124, Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bombay Act no XXII of 1951) - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. This petition raises a neat question of law and in order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be necessary to set out the allegation of the prosecution case. It is common ground that the petitioner was charged-sheeted under Section 124 of the Act. It is further alleged in the charge-sheet that on 16-12-1980 at about 11-45 hrs. When house of the petitioner was searched several article of foreign make were found in his possession. These articles were not owned by the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »