Mumbai Court July 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.
Dagadu Maruti Jadhav Vs. Narendrapal Jaswantpal Barara and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR399a
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. '(5) In every appeal under this Rule, the appellant shall join as respondent all the candidates (other than himself) whose nominations have been accepted by the Returning Officer'.This is sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Election Rules, 1966. The interpretation of this sub-rule and, in fact the interpretation of entire Rule 15 are involved in this petition.2. The facts are few and can be stated to be undisputed. The petitioner is a resident of Nanded town. The election programme for the Municipality of Nanded was announced. Elections to the Municipality of Nanded were to be held and the election programme commenced on 23rd of March, 1985, which was the first day for filing the nomination papers. The last date for filing the nomination papers was 4th of April, 1985 by which date several persons had filed nomination papers for the election to ward No. 54. Of these persons, nomination papers of 10 were accepted. While doing so, on 6th of Apri...
Vyapari Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom302; 1985(2)BomCR603; ILR1986Bom158
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners, which is an Association of Merchants at Shirpur in Dhule District. The Writ Petition is filed on behalf of the members of the Association, who are Licence-holders of the Shirpur Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Shirpur, respondent 3, and are carrying on business as commission agents. The main challenge in this petition is to the provisions of Section 48A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, Section 30A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act and the sub-rule framed under bye-law 46 by the Market Committee.2. Shri Setalvad and Shri Rege, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended before us that the commission agents operating within the Market Area of the respondent 3 Market Committee cannot be compelled to deduct the amount due to the Co-operative Societies. The provisions of Section 48A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the sub-rule framed un...
Abdul Khalekh Mohd. Musa Vs. Ramkrishna Maroti Bangar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR250
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to raise a question relating to the interpretation of Rule 23 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies (Election to Committees) Rules, 1971. The fourth respondent is the specified society and the petitioner and the first respondent are contesting the election to the Board of Directors from the constituency described as 28-M constituency. We are informed that this constituency is for the election of a member to the Board from the weaker section of the community. The second respondent in the petition is the Returning Officer appointed to conduct the election for the said constituency. The State of Maharashtra has been joined as the third respondent.2. The election programme for the fourth respondent Bank, hereinafter referred to as the respondent-bank, was announced and the election process started with the publication of the notice of the election on 3rd of June, 1985. The nomination papers were t...
Rao and Co. Vs. the Accounts Officer, D.E.T. Officer, Panaji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom227
Kamat, J.1. This petition challenges the action of the respondents of disconnecting the telephone on 6th Nov. 1984 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to pay a sum of Rs. 3536/- pursuant to the demand note sent by the respondent 1.2. Petitioner, a partnership firm, is carrying on business of exhibiting cinemas in the name and style of Cine Theatre National and is a subscriber of a telephone which bears No. 3854. On 1st Jan., 1984 a bill was sent to the petitioner for a period covering from 15th Oct., 1983 to 15th Dec., 1983 claiming a sum of Rs. 3885/50. On this bill Rs. 125/- is shown to be the fixed rental for the period of two months, trunk call charges of Rs. 100/50 and the balance amount of Rs. 3660/- for 8100 local calls.3. The petitioner very strongly disputed this bill and contended in his representation cum-complaint that considering the past averages and the actual nimbler of calls made on that telephone there could not be any case for 8100 calls during the period fr...
Rambhau Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom69; 1985MhLJ869
Deshpande, J.1. The question, which arises for consideration in this letters patent appeal, is whether while calculating ceiling area under S. 3 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, as amended by Act No.21 of 1975, (the Ceiling Act, for short), the provisions for maintenance and marriage expenses of unmarried major daughters have to be taken into account.2. The appellant-Rambhau Rajaram Mahure filed a return under S. 12(1)(a) of the Ceiling Act of the land held by his family before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, stating that his family comprised of his two minor sons, wife and himself. The return disclosed the details of land as 106 acres and 24 gunthas held by the appellant along with his minor sons. The appellant's wife-Indubai separately held 91 acres and 6 gunthas of land which she had received under a gift-deed, dt. Oct. 8, 1949, from her mother. That land was transferred to different persons under agreements of sale. Eventually, the Sur...
Uttam Narayan Aoval and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR11
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The order of the Sessions Court impugned by this petition has got to be set aside on the ground that it is just plainly unsustainable in law.2. The facts are simple. One Kasturbai filed a complaint at the Police Station against accused Eknath complaining that she had been slapped by him when she objected to the accused taking cattle over her land. Eknath and other accused, who are respondents here, got annoyed and assaulted various persons, apparently associated with her on 22-9-1982. What they are alleged to have done is that on the said date that is on 22nd September, 1982 while two persons Vishnu and Arjun were sitting in the open site behind Mahadeo temple in the village, Accused Nos. 1 to 13 rushed towards them with sticks and axes in their hands and questioned them as to why Kasturbai, daughter-in-law of one of them, had filed the complaint at the Police Station. Simultaneously they started beating and assaulting both Vishnu and Arjun with sticks and axes.It ...
Johnson and Johnson Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise and 2 ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: 1989(20)LC387(Bombay)
Pendse, J.1. Heard Shri Desai for the petitioners and Shri Sethna for the respondents.2. It is not necessary to entertain this petition in view of the fact that the petitioners have already filed an appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, and the appeal is pending before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The petitioners were aggrieved by the action of the respondents in proceeding to recover a large amount of Rs. 1,82,20,194.56 in pursuance of the order which is under appeal. It is obvious and Shri Sethna does not dispute that fact that the recovery is made in pursuance of the order which is under appeal. It is not necessary to entertain the petition at this juncture because it is open for the petitioners to approach the appellate authority and apply for stay of the enforcement of the order under appeal and consequently of the order of recovery of the large amount. In case, the petitioners have not filed the application for stay till today, ...
Orient Woollen Textile Mills Pvt. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1985
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT574Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order in original bearinq No. SG-51/83A dated 25-9-1984 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as under- The appellants M/s. Orient Woollen Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as the appellants) carry on business of manufacture and export of varieties of textile products including polyester and wool.On behalf of the appellants, M/s. Gokaldas Hansaraja Shipping Pvt.Ltd., presented a shipping bill bearing No. 023465 dated 26-7-1983 in the Customs house for export of 600 bales containing 42,000 kgs. of Indian synthetic yarn of composition of 80% polyester fibre and 20% wool and valued at Rs.14,74,200/-. The said shipping bill was completed by the Export Department of the Customs House on the basis of the declaration made therein and also on the basis of the shipping documents signed by Shri S.K. Daga, Director of the appellants...
V.S. Karandikar and Sons Through Its Partners and ors. Vs. Girdharilal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR261
B.C. Gadgil, J.1. Plaintiffs in Suit No. 342 of 1984 of the file of the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Satara, have filed this writ petition challenging the orders passed by the 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Satara in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 169 of 1984. The trial Court had granted an ad interim injunction against the defendants restraining them from executing the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 273 of 1966. The defendants challenged this order by filing the above mentioned Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 169 of 1984. The said appeal was allowed and the ad interim injunction was vacated. It is this order that is being challenged before me.2. At this stage, certain facts are not in dispute. Gokuldas Gujar who was the predecessor-in title of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 273 of 1966 against Vishwanath Karandikar and Venkatesh Mudholkar. This Gokuldas Gujar and respondents Nos. 1 to 5 are hereinafter referred to as Gujar. Similarly, Vishwanath K...
Silicon Electricals Vs. C. Kurup, Superintendent Central Excise, and 9 ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1985
Reported in: 1989(20)LC358(Bombay)
Pendse, J.1. Heard Shri Taleyarkhan [for the petitioners and Shri Sethna for the respondents.2. After arguments, I felt that it would be appropriate in the circumstances of the case to direct return of documents set out at Exhibit 'D' to the petition to the petitioners on following conditions. Shri Taleyarkhan states that the documents set out at Item Nos. 1, 5, 10, 15 and 16 are not required by the petitioners, but the remaining documents are required to enable the petitioners to complete their returns for payment of sales-tax and income-tax. In these circumstances, the remaining documents should be returned to the petitioners on following conditions.(i) The respondents would take photostat copies of the documents to be returned to the petitioners at the expense of the petitioners. The petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs. 1000/- with the respondents within three days from to-day and on such deposit being made, the original documents should be returned to the petitioners within a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »