Mumbai Court July 1988 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.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Annappa Balappa Vanjele
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR206
A.D. Tated, J.1. This appeal is directed against judgement and order dated 19th December, 1983 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli, in Regular Criminal Case No. 76 of 1982, whereby he acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 7 read with section 16 of the Food Adulteration Act.2. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Magistrate and also heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In this case permitted colour Tartrazine Sunset yellow F.C.F. has been used as flavouring agent. Rule 30 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules provides that the permitted colour shall not exceed 0.2 gram per kilogram of the final food or beverage for consumption. In the present case, the Public Analyst in his report, does not state as to the percentage of Tartrazine Sunset Yellow F.C.F. found in the sample of Kiwam. In the absence of proof that the permitted colour in excess of the quantity mentioned in Rule 30 has been used by the respondent, the respondent cannot...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Hanmantsa Ganpatsa Katwa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR687
A.D. Tated, J.1. This appeal is against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, dated 31st August, 1983, in S.T.C.C. No. 2104 of 1982 acquitting the respondent of the charge under section 7(1) read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Magistrate and heard the Counsel for the parties. In this case there is a clear breach of the provision of section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act in as much as the Local Health Authority did not send a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused so as to enable him to exercise his right under section 13(2) of the said Act. In view of the breach of the said mandatory provisions of law the learned trial Magistrate was well justified in acquitting the accused. There is, therefore, no substance in the appeal.3. In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds stand cancelled....
Haji N. Abdul Kadar and ors. Vs. D.N. Mulye, Asst. Collector of Custom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1988
Reported in: 1992(38)LC448(Bombay)
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition is by five persons arraigned as Accused Nos. 24 to 28 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ratnagiri for the commission of offences punishable under the Customs Act, the Import and Export (Control) Act and the Indian Penal Code.2. Respondent No. 1 who is an Assistant Collector of Customs, Ratnagiri Division has instituted Regular Criminal Case No. 61 of 1986 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ratnagiri. The complaint recites that on the night between 22nd and 23rd of May 1985 a posse of the Customs was patrolling the area around Deogad in a patrolling craft 'Al-Mashrik'. At that time they noticed a launch moving towards the shore but without lights. The signal to stop having been ignored by the launch a chase was given to the fleeing launch. It was cornered and boarded by the Customs staff. The launch tad no name or registration number and appeared to have been freshly painted. It was loaded with what appeared to be contraband. Th...
Mohd. S.A.K. Shaikh Vs. Secy., (Home) Govt. of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: 1989(39)ELT397(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department by order dated February 2, 1988 passed in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, directed detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. The order of detention was served within a couple of days and so also the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention inter alia recites that on March 7, 1987 while the petitioner was proceeding to Dubai from Sahar Air Port his baggage was searched and in one brown suit case a false bottom was noticed. On removing the cloth lining, one carbon paper pasted underneath the cloth lining was seen. On tearing the carbon paper United States $ 13842 of different denominations packed in seven polythene bags were recovered. The statement of the detenu was recorded on March 7, 1987 and thereafter on March 23, 1987. The detenu was produced before th...
Bharat Chandulal Nanavati and anr. Vs. United Commercial Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR146
H. Suresh, J.1. Two questions arises in this petition: (a) If a money decree is executable on the day the insolvency petition is presented, but not so at the hearing of the same as being barred by the law of limitation, whether an order of adjudication can be passed under section 13 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909? and (b) when does the limitation start of the purpose of execution of a money decree, governed by the Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on the Original Side as they existed prior to May, 1, 1980 ?2. The relevant facts are on a very narrow campus. The petitioning creditors obtained an ex parte decree in the High Court Suit No. 1313 of 1975, against one Mona Traders Pvt. Ltd., a company, and the present debtors, on March 4, 1976. The decree was sealed on July 12, 1976. As far as the company is concerned, the same is in liquidation. As against the other two judgement -debtors (i.e. the debtors herein), debtor No. 1 owes a sum of Rs. 29,00,000/- and od...
Piroja M. Mehta Vs. Hambai Jamshedji Cama (Dr.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR1; (1988)90BOMLR292
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition arises out of proceedings instituted by the respondents for possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner. The premises are situated at Mahabaleshwar in Satara District. The respondents are the landlords of the petitioner. They served upon the petitioner a notice on 23rd of May, 1979 under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act , demanding from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,675/- which was the rent due from 1st August, 1977 to 30th of April, 1979. Since there was no compliance with the demand made by the notice, the respondent filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 1980, in the Court of Civil (Judge, Junior Division), at Wai.2. The petitioner resisted the suit by contending that if proper account was taken of the amounts due from the parties to each other, there would be no arrears of rent as contended by the respondents. The petitioner also c...
Ajit T. Mirchandani of Pune Vs. Chandra Indersen Mirchandani and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR179; 1988MhLJ971
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to quash the prosecution initiated against the petitioner upon a complaint moved by the 1st respondent in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Bombay.2. Petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Accused') is the brother of the deceased husband of respondent 1 (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant') their third brother Vijay having died on 23 April, 1982. Complainant's husband Inder died on 30 July, 1982. Inder married twice, the first wife being a Swedish lady Barbro, from whom he has two issues viz. Rajiv and Kavita. That marriage ended in a divorce. Whereafter Inder on 30 August, 1964 married the complainant. The union has been blessed with a son named Shiv. Inder was an enterprising Industrialist and was a leading figure in several industrial concerns. The principal company throug...
Ashoka Traders Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC233
1. This is an appeal against the order No. S/10-119/87/SG 23/87 SUB dated 25-1-88 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bom bay. The facts of the case as narrated in the adjudication order indicate that there were two identical consignments each consisting of 41 bales declared to contain white tinted soft wool waste imported by M/s. Ashoka Traders.The importers filed the Bill of Entry IGM No. 2034 item No. 161 for the clearance of 41 bales only. The said B/E was as sessed in the normal course under IInd check procedure and the party paid the import duty before physical examination of the goods. In the meantime, pursuant to the scrutiny of the IGM No. 2034, the officers of the Special Investigation Branch noticed another consignment of 41 bales of wool waste against item No. 178 of the IGM with same marks and numbers for the same importers. Hence both the lots were inspected by the SUB and noticed that one lot was wrapped in white plastic cover and the other lot was in black plastic cove...
M/S Sanghi Motors (Bombay) Ltd. and Another Vs. M.T. Shinde and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR358
ORDER1. This petition is by a Private Limited Company and a division thereof taking exception to the cognizance taken against them by a Magistrate upon a complaint of Respondent 1 that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 447 r/w. 34 of the I.P.C.2. Respondent No. 1 claiming to be the Manager of a premises Co-operative Society purports to act under a resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the said Society on 25 February 1985. It is claimed that the Society owns property known as Mani Mahal situate at 11/21, Mathew Road, Bombay-4. The society has 16 members/occupants. Petitioners are occupants of the ground floor of the building being tenants of a member Mrs. Ben D. Patel. They have raised a garden in the open space and have put up a cordon beyond the said garden. This constitutes criminal trespass as it has been done with an intent to annoy the members and tenants of the Society in possession of the property. Next, as a result of the acts of the Petiti...
Gautam Vishnu Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1988
Reported in: 1989(39)ELT394(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, by order dated April 11, 1988 passed in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 directed detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. The order was served on April 16, 1988 and grounds of detention were furnished.2. Briefly the grounds recite that the consignment in the name of the petitioner was received at Sahar Air Port as unaccompanied baggage. On June 24, 1987 the petitioner was called from his house and wooden box was examined in presence of the panchas and 20 gold bars of 10 tolas each, cleverly concealed in the specially made cavities in the base of the box in between the two plywood planks were recovered. The wooden box also contained one room airconditioner and two pillows. The statement of the petitioner was recorded and the petitioner claimed that he came down to Bombay from Du...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »