Mumbai Court December 1985 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.
Ramesh Ganpat Ghanekar Vs. R.D. Tyagi and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1985
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR537; (1985)87BOMLR667
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. An order of detention dt. 18th August 1985 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, in exercise of powers under S. 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug-offenders Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') in relation to the petitioner is challenged in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Along with the order of detention, the grounds of detention formulated in Marathi were supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said detention order by contending, among other things, that the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration irrelevant factors which would not justify the subjective satisfaction at which the Detaining Authority has arrived.2. Before proceeding to consider the challenge of the petitioner to the order of detention, it would be advantageous to notice briefly the provisions of the said Act. Section 2(b) defines a bootlegger. A bootlegger means a pe...
Razia Patel W/O Shrikant Sawangikar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR642
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate. Aurangabad dated 16th November, 1985 issued under section 144(2)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibiting Shri Hussein Jamadar, Organizer of 'Talaq Mukti Morcha ' and his followers from entering the limits of Aurangabad City for a period form 00.00 hours of 17th November, 1985 to 24.00 hours of 16th January, 1986 except on Court summons. Admittedly this order was passed ex parte without giving any show cause notice to the organizer of the morcha. The petitioner is a member of the Reception Committee formed at Aurangabad to receive the said morcha. Muslim Satya Sodhak Mandal, is a social organization founded for promoting social reforms in Muslims in India. The organization decided to take out a Talaq Mukti Morcha from Kolhapur to Nagpur to create public opinion against the plight of Muslim women, who are subjected to oral talaq and are rendered destitu...
Shri Siddik Noormohd. Khafi Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT944Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The prayer in this application is for condonation of delay in the presentation of the appeal CD (Bonn) 635/85. When this application was taken up for consideration none appeared for the applicant. Shri Senthivel appearing for the Respondent Collector submitted that there has been a delay of nearly 2 months. The only explanation given was that within the period of limitation the appeal papers were sent to the Registry, but it was not accepted as it was not presented in person or by a Registered Post. Shri Senthivel submitted that under Rule 6 of the CEGAT Rule, the presentation of the appeal could be either in person or through a Registered Post and since the appellant had not adopted either of the above modes, the Registry had rightly refused to accept and in the absence of any other cause for the delayed presentation of the appeal, the application shall have to be rejected.2. We have considered the submission made by Shri Senthivei. Rules of procedure are not intended to hamper ju...
Siddik Noormohd. Khafi Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1985
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT732Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The prayer in this application is for condonation of delay in the presentation of the appeal CD (Bom.)635/85. When this application was taken up for consideration none appeared for the applicant. Shri Senthival appearing for the Respondent Collector submitted that there has been a delay of nearly 2-1/2 months. The only explanation given was that within the period of limitation the appeal papers were sent to the Registry, but it was not accepted as it was not presented in person or by a Registered Post. Shri Senthivel submitted that under Rule 6 of the CEGAT Rule, the presentation of the appeal could be either in person or through a Registered Post and since the appellant had not adopted either of the above modes, the Registry had rightly refused to accept and in the absence of any other cause for the delayed presentation of the appeal, the application shall have to be rejected.2. We have considered the submission made by Shri Senthivel. Rules of procedure are not intended to hamper...
Hindustani Prachar Sabha and ors. Vs. Dr. (Miss) Roma Sengupta and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1985
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR312]; (1994)IIILLJ34Bom
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The 1st petitioner is a charitable trust which carried on, inter alia, research in languages. The 1st respondent was its Research Officer (Hindi) at the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Research Centre and Library between 1st April 1976 and 23rd April 1981.2. On 3rd April 1981 the Managing Committee of the 1st petitioner met, considered and reviewed the working of the Research Centre and its organisation. The minutes of that meeting are on record and show that the 3rd petitioner, the Honorary Secretary of the 1st petitioner, commenced the discussion with the statement that the Research Centre was not functioning effectively. After some discussion the Managing Committee unanimously resolved that reorganisation of the Research Centre was necessary. It was resolved, under the item 'Reorganization of Research Centre', that the 1st petitioner's magazine 'Hindustani Zaban' should be suspended forthwith and the advisability of publishing it as an annual should be reviewed after the...
Transworld Shipping Services (i) Vs. Collector of Customs (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1985
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT408Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The revision application originally filed by M/s. Transworld Shipping Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. before the Government of India against the order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49-1 10/81M dated 15-2-82 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. During the pendency of the appeal, M/s. Samrat Shipping Co. Pvt.Ltd. filed an application to bring them on record as appellants as they are successors in interest of M/s. Transworld Shippping Services. Their application was allowed.3. The Deputy Collector of Customs, MCD on the basis of outturn reports of the Bombay Port Trust that there was shortlanding in respect of item Nos. 2, 13, 14, 24, 38 and 54, issued a show cause notice dated 23.9.80 to M/s. Transworld Shipping Services to account for the goods reported to be shortlanded and also to show cause why action should not be taken against them under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s.Transworld Shipping S...
Raghunath Eknath Hivale Vs. Shardabai Karbhari Kale and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1985
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas755(Bom)
Sawant J.1. These are tow appeals filed by the owner of a truck, which is a goods vehicle, against the decision of the Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ahmednagar, making him liable to pay compensation to the claimants under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939.2. The relevant facts leading to both the appeals are as follows :The accident in question took place at about 9.30 a.m. on July 28, 1982, near Chandnapuri Shivar on Sangamner - Pune Road. The truck in question bearing No.MWA 548 was owned and driven by the appellant, Raghunath. At the relevant time, it was loaded with 700 baskets full of tomatoes. Along with tomato baskets, the truck was also carrying 15 or 16 owners thereof. Some of them were sitting in the receptacle of the truck and two of them were sitting by the side of the driver. As the truck proceeded after crossing a corner, according to the appellant, a jeep car came in the front and one the wrong side of the road. he, therefore, tried to avert a collision, with the result that he to...
Hari Singh Verma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1985
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR561]; (1987)ILLJ368Bom
1. The petition is by a Western Railway servant. He is a member of the Scheduled Caste. He was appointed as a clerk on 2nd September, 1967. In 1972 he was promoted as a senior clerk, in 1978 as a head clerk and in 1980 as a chief clerk, in which the position he was working when the petition was filed.2. The 3rd respondent is, on the admission of Western Railway authorities, junior to the petitioner and is so shown in the seniority list. The 3rd respondent has filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay claiming a higher seniority. To this suit the petitioner is not a party. For the purposes of this petition the petitioner shall, on the basis of the seniority list, be considered senior to the 3rd respondent.3. The 3rd respondent is also a member of the Scheduled Caste. On 31st October, 1981 the 3rd respondent was placed by the authorities on a select list for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent. This order stated that the petitioner had not been considered suitable for the...
Raghunath Eknath Hivale Vs. Shardabai Karbhari Kale and ors. Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom386; 1986(1)BomCR474; (1985)87BOMLR657; 1986MhLJ170
Sawant, J.1. These are two appeals filed by the owner of a truck which is a goods vehicle against the decisions of the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, making him liable to pay compensation to the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.2. The relevant facts leading to both the appeals are as follows:-The accident in question took place at about 9-30 a.m. on the 28th July, 1982 near Chandnapuri Shivar on Sangamner-pune Road. The truck in question bearing motor vehicle No.MWA 548 owned and driven by the Appellant Raghunath. At the relevant time it was loaded with 700 baskets full of tomatoes. Along with tomato baskets, the truck was also carrying 15 to 16 owners thereof. Some of them were sittingg gin the receptacle of the truck and two of them were sittinggg by the side of the driver. As the truck proceeded after crossing a corner, according to the Appellant, a jeep car came from the front and on the wrong side of the road. He therefore tried to avert a collision, with the r...
Ramchandra Ambaji Gite Vs. Madhukar Vinayak Limaye and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1985
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR362
S.W. Puranik, J.1. Heard Shri Surana, Advocate for the petitioner, and Shri Limaye, Advocate, in person as respondent. The petitioner had filed a suit in the Small Causes Court, Pune, way back in the year 1973 for possession. Unfortunately even after 12 years have elapsed, the petitioner is yet to get the fruits of his decree. There are various averments in this petition made by the decree-holder that the respondent-judgment-debtor has been protracting the litigation one way or the other. This Court is quite concerned with the dilatory tactics adopted by various litigants in the Court. But suffice it to say that the present case does not need any elaboration on that aspect of the case as this matter could be disposed of on the question of tenability of the proceeding under O.9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 3328 of 1973 before the Judge of the Small Causes Court, Pune on November 23, 1973. It was decreed in his favour on December 15, 1983...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »