Mumbai Court July 1990 Judgments

Puthiya Mudathummal Mujeeb Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR135

A.A. Desai, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of detention dated 12th January, 1990 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Secretary (Preventive Detention) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, (Special) Mantralaya, Bombay, in exercise of the power under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange And Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974 (Act No. 52 of 1974). (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cofeposa)The first ground of challenge as formulated by Shri Maqsood Khan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the absence of cogent and sufficient material indicative of the likelihood either of the petitioner being released on bail or thereupon his indulging in the activity of smuggling goods, has vitiated the subjective satisfaction as reached by the detaining authority. To fortify this ground, it is pointed out that the detenu reached Bombay from Dubai on 2-8-1989. He was arrested under section 104 of the Customs Ac...

Ashok and anr. Vs. Vanamala and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(1991)DMC605

H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Akola, who has set aside the order of the learned trial Magistrate acquitting the applicants-accused of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and remanding the matter to him for fresh hearing according to law after impleading the father of the accused No. 1 as co-accused in the proceedings. The learned counsel for the applicants has urged before me that the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge is very limited. It is well settled that in the revisional jurisdiction, an order of acquittal cannot be converted into one of conviction. It is further well settled that it is not open to the revisional Court to reappreciate the evidence on record and take its own view even though the view taken by the learned trial Court is a reasonable and possible view. In fact, in the appeal against acquittal itself this restriction is observed...

Samrat Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Collector of Customs and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1990(30)LC484(Bombay)

M.L. Pendse, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith.Shri Pochkbanwala waives service on behalf of the respondents.Heard Counsel.It is regrettable that Mr. S.S. Rana, Additional Collector of of Customs, Manifest Clearance Department, should pass order dated March 21, 1990 in exercise of powers under Section 116 of the Customs Act imposing penalty of Rs. 2,21,777/- on the shipping a/rent in spite of decision of this Court reported in : 1986(25)ELT948(Bom) (Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd v. Assistant Collector of Customs and Ors. The Additional Collector has recorded finding exactly contrary to the judgment of this Court and I was almost tempted to issue notice of contempt to the Additional Collector. I have restrained myself from exercising that power with the hope that the Additional Collector will not repeat the mistake hereafter.2. The Additional Collector passed the order in respect of short landing of item No. 69 and item No. 70. In respect of both these items the clear-cut finding recorded by the...

S.A. Bagayatkar Vs. Suvidha Trading Corporation

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

G.G. Loney, President: (1) Dissatisfied with the impugned order of District Forum, Bombay, the Consumer preferred this appeal. (2) According to appellant the Washing Machine he purchased from respondent, went out of order immediately. He further alleged that despite the replacement of motor thrice by respondent, the machine was not giving him service and hence it was defective. He made complaints to the respondent, to Police and to Home Department. Ultimately filed the complaint before the District Forum, Bombay and claimed back the price of machine Rs. 5,500 and to take back the machine. (3) It appears from record that the Opposite Party did not file the say to the notice sent by District Forum under Section 13 dated 7.2.90 within thirty days, but on 23.3.90 sent a proposal to advise the complainant to purchase a 1/4th H.P. Motor with an assurance to refund its cost. The District Forum without ascertaining the prayer of complainant to refund the price of machine acted on the aforesaid...

Youth, for Unity and Voluntary Action (Yuva) Vs. State of Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1991Bom60; 1990(3)BomCR476; (1990)92BOMLR411; 1991(1)MhLj504

ORDERBharucha, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal impugns the orders passed by Sharad Manoher J. on 7th March, 1990 and 7th April, 1990 while the First Appeal (F.A. No. 108 of 1987) was pending before him. Thereby he ordered the demolition of hutments in certain areas. This appeal is filed by a social welfare organisation which was an intervener in the First Appeal. The First Appeal had been converted by the learned judge into a public interest litigation.2. The impugned orders came to bepassed in the following circumstances : A suit (being Suit No. 6890 of 1985) was filed by theplaintiff against the State of Maharashtra in the City Civil Court at Bombay for a declaration that notices issued to him by the TehsiS-dar(ENC), Kurla, were not binding upon him and for a permanent injunction restraining the State Government from demolishing his structure at Azad Nagar, Ghatkopar, pursuant to such notices. The Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiff for interim relief was heard and disposed o...

The Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. M/S. Jaycee Drugs and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1991Bom96; 1990(3)BomCR1; (1987)89BOMLR149

ORDERC. Mookerjee, C. J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10th February 1987 passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh dismissing its Misc. Petition No. 29 of 1986 filed u/S. 31 and 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act (Act 63 of 1951), the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation has preferred this Appeal. 2. M/s. Jaycee Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Respondent No. 1 had executed an Indenture of Mortgage dated 29th June 1979 in favour of the Appellant, the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation, in respect of certain immoveable property, machinery and plant, etc., described in the schedule to the said Indenture and also goodwill and uncalled capital of the mortgagor company to secure repayment of the loan of the sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- to the Corporation and interest thereon. On 29th June 1979, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents executed another Indenture in favour of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation, the Appellant, covenanting, agreeing and declaring inter...

Nirali Enterprise Vs. Union of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1990(50)ELT497(Bom)

Rule returnable forthwith.Shri Vyas waives service on behalf of the respondents.Heard Counsel.1. Several petitions are filed in this Court seeking identical reliefs as in present petition and minutes of order are tendered in all the petitions. Shri Vyas has raised objection to pass identical order on two counts. The first objection is that the petitioner ought to have filed several separate petitions. The objection is that the petitioners have imported various consignments by different ships and in respect of those diverse consignments separate petitions should have been filed. It is difficult to find any merit in the submission, save and except that the respondents desire that there should be multiplicity of litigation. It is difficult to appreciate who would be benefited by filing separate petitions when the relief claimed is identical and it is the petitioners alone who have imported all these consignments. The first objection is therefore overruled.2. The second objection raised by...

Swaroopchand S/O Bacchraj Kothari and ors. Vs. Leela W/O Ramsingh Sury ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR501

H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These revision applications which arise out of the same original criminal case can be disposed of conveniently by the common judgment.2. In all these revisions the applicant has challenged the common order passed in identical four criminal appeals by the learned Sessions Judge allowing the appeals of the non-applicants and setting aside the order of the learned trial Magistrate about return of property in the criminal case to the applicant.3. The facts are that three accused by names Sitaram (accused No. 1), Ramsingh (accused No. 2) and Deepak (accused No. 3) were tried for the offences punishable under sections 379, 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 1054 of 80 decided on 3-4-1982. The prosecution case was that Sitaram (accused No. 1) was the driver of the applicant. On 24-1-1980 the applicant who had gone to Lonar in district Buldana with his family to attend the marriage, was returning to his house. The accused No. 1 Sitara, was the driver of ...

Ashok Kumar Jalan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1991]187ITR316(Bom)

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following question has been referred to us for determination :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the transaction of purchase on April 3, 1980, and sale on October 1, 1980, of the National Gold Bonds, 1980, which was effectively held by the assessee only for a period of two days from September 29, 1980, to October 1, 1980, was entered into with the intention of making profit and that such profit earned on the sale ofNational Gold Bonds, 1980, would be assessable as business income in the hands of the assessee ?'2. In our view, the question as framed does not bring out correctly the point at issue which we are required to determine. It is also framed in a manner which begs the question. With the consent of the parties, there-fore, we have refrained the question as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of...

Hasan Bandubhai Shaikh Vs. K.T. Kulkarni and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1991CriLJ215

1. This revision application has been filed by the aggrieved complainant challenging the, order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, by which order, the Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., by which order, he had directed issue of process against Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 in this case. It is not necessary to state the facts in greater detail. Suffice it to say that Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 belong to the Police force and were working at the relevant time at Akkalkot, District Solapur. The complainant's grievance, as could be gathered from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was that Accused No. 1 came to the Video Parlour, owned by his son, on 6th October, 1986 and after making enquiries, he remarked that the owner had no proper licence. He further stated that accused No. 1 demanded a bribe of Rs. 200/- per month and threatened that in case it was not paid, he would stop...