Mumbai Court December 1990 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.
U.M. HussaIn Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT512(Bom)
Daud, J.1. This appeal takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against persons arraigned as accused Nos. 8 and 15 before the trial magistrate for their allegedly committing offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian penal Code, Sections 135(a)(i) and 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act.2. The prosecution case, shortly stated and to the extent relevant for deciding this appeal, may be stated thus :-Nathala and Lutha - the first person having been acquitted and the second absconding - masterminded a conspiracy to facilitate the smuggling, landing and disposal of smuggled goods coming from shores beyond India. For this purpose the conspirators had made the Kamal Mansion at Mohamadali Road, Bombay their headquarters. Here, a telephone was installed and Lutha placed one Mansur in charged of keeping track of the planning and execution of the conspiracy. The appellants being accused Nos. 8 and 15 are from Margaon ...
Tukaram S. Vichare Vs. Dattaram S. Vichare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR250
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against an order dated 5-1-1989 passed by the Appellate Officer constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, Bombay. The case presents a rather unusual set of facts and circumstances and also raises issues of both importance and interest, namely, that it calls for an interpretation of the term 'subletting' in the special context of section 66 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner before this Court and respondent No. 1 are both real brothers. The dispute in question concerns a one-room tenement No. 16/1097, situated at Abhyudaya Nagar, Kalachowki, Bombay, which premises are, admittedly, Housing Board Premises. The Premises in question were remarked for allocation to Industrial workers. In the year 1964, respondent No.1 applied for allotment of the tenement in question to him because ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›