Mumbai Court February 1991 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.
Shivgonda Balgonda Patil and Others Vs. the Director of Resettlement a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom72
ORDERMrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This writ petition and a number of other petitions, which are before us, are from persons in the benefited zone of the Warana Irrigation Project whose lands are sought to be acquired for the rehabilitation of persons displaced by the project. In all these writ petitions, the vires of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1985 is challenged. A number of writ petitions which challenged the vires of the said Amendment and Validation Act,1985 on the same grounds as are urged in these petitions were considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dhulgonda Dada Patil v. Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 15 reported in : AIR1989Bom286 . The Division Bench has upheld the validity of the said Amendment and Validation Act of 1985. The Division Bench has observed in its judgment in para 10 that under sub-sec. (1) of Section 4 of the Amendment and Validation Act, the final declarations made under Sec...
Kashinath Kisan Bhoye Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR95; 1991CriLJ1909
Vaidya, J.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik had convicted the present appellant in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1988 on his file, of an offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. and had sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution story as it emerges from the record is as follows : The appellant is alleged to have murdered, on 21st Dec. 1987 at about 10 p.m. his wife's brother Ramdas Santu Pawar in front of the residences of both of them at village Lingame, Taluka Kalwan, District Nasik. Santu was the father of deceased Ramdas and several years ago, when Ramdas was a minor and Santu was ailing of some ailment. Santu had brought to his house the accused as an illatom son-in-law to look after Santu's agricultural property at Lingame. In course of time, the daughter of Santu, that is the elder sister of deceased Ramdas, was married to the appellant. About 9 or 10 years before the incident of offence, Santu had died. Till then, and for a few years aft...
Satwant Kaur Pruthi Vs. Satya Vijay Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR390
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the decision of the second respondent in an appeal preferred by the first respondent.2. The first respondent is a Co-operative Housing Society registered as such under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Dr. C.S. Kothari, was a member of the said society and he was allotted premises described as shop No. 17. Some transaction in relation to the shop took place between Dr. Kothari and the petitioner. Petitioner was not a member of the society - whether full or nominal. However after having claimed to purchase the shop from Dr. Kothari, she gave an intimation thereof to the Society. The Society raised a dispute which led to the registration of Case No. 351 of 1983. To this dispute were implied the petitioner as also Dr. Kothari. The parties compromised the matter and submitted consent terms on the basis of which an award was passed. The said award is at Exhibit 'B'. After the passing of th...
Malhari Pandurang Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR224
D.J. Moharir, J.1. he appellant, Malhari Pandurang Shinde, was tried for committing murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but came to be convicted under section 304 (Part II) of the I.P.C. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. This appeal challenges both the conviction and sentence awarded. The prosecution case in short, is as under.2. At the village Nirwangi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, Parubai, wife of Ganpat Machale, owned agricultural land. This parcel of land adjoins the land of the accused Malhari as also one Digamber. To the south of Parubai's field, at some distance from it, is the land of one Shankar. The cultivation of this land was done by Shankar Kavitke by engaging the prosecution witness No. 1, Atmaram Lalge as an agricultural servant. Parubai and Ganpat have two sons. One of them is the prosecution witness, Baban (P.W. 6). The other son Nivruti lives at Walchandnagar, District Satara where he is employed. On 24th October, 1982, Ganpat ...
Underwater Services Company (P.) Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD447(Mum.)
1. The assessee, a resident company, is in appeal for the assessment year 1986-87, for which the previous year is said to have ended on 31st December 1985. The assessment order reveals the method of accounting as 'Hybrid'. The assessment has been framed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Qua the assessee's grievances raised in the form of grounds of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the narration in the assessment order reads as under:- During the previous year, the assessee entered into a new line of business, namely that of salvaging operation for the Bombay Port Trust for salvaging ships and vessels sunk in the Bombay Harbour. The assessee entered into contract this year with the Bombay Port Trust (B.P.T.) for salvage of four ships/vessels namely 'Gulf Star', 'Sun Glory', 'Sun Rise' and 'Cherry Chantak'. For carrying out this salvage operation, the assessee engaged the services of three specialised vessels on hire which are fitted with necessary diving ...
Nilesh Alias Narayan Y. Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom225; 1991(1)MhLj770
ORDER1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to Exh. A being an order dated 28th July, 1986 passed by the 2nd respondent, the Collector of Bombay, Prohibition and Excise Department.2. Laxman Shankar More was licenced to sell country liquor in a country liquor shop situated at Dhavda Chawl, Hingwala Lane, Ghatkopar, Bombay-75. The licence bore the registration No. CL III/206. More addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent on 29th December, 1975 expressing a desire to take the petitioner as a partner in the country liquor shop aforementioned. He has also the petitioner addressed communications to the 2nd respondent which are at Exhs. C & D. As required by the authorities, petitioner submitted an affidavit at Exh. E and the deed of partnership which is at Exh. G. The proposal made by More and the petitioner was accepted and the original licence Exh. H, which formerly stood in the sole name of More, was amended to show the petitioner as a partner in the busine...
Employees State Insurance Corporation and Another Vs. G.N. Mathur and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR436; [1991(63)FLR115]; (1992)IILLJ689Bom
1. A somewhat difficult question arises inn this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution vis-a-vis the liability of a Technical Director designed as an 'occupier' under the Factories Act 1948, but sought to be made personally liable for recovery of the employer's share of contributions payable under Section 40 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 - hereinafter referred to as the 'ESI Act'. 2. Respondent No. 1 G. N. Mathur was the Technical Director of a company doing business in the name and style of Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. which is respondent no. 11 to the present petition. The other Directors of the company were respondent nos. 4 to 10. The employer's contribution under the ESI Act had not been remitted by the company for the period January 1977 to September 1983 - both inclusive. For that reason the 1st petitioner - hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' - gave notices to Mathur and respondent nos. 4 and 7 to 10 to remote in unpaid contribution...
Smt. Sharmila R. Kotian Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom53
ORDER1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution takes exception to an order passed by the Chief Officer of the second respondent hereinafter referred to as the 'Board' vis-a-vis the entitlement of respondent No. 3 as against the petitioner.2. Respondent No. 3 was in occupation of Room No. 8 on third floor of Madhav Building at Parel, Bombay 400012. On 11-7-1976 respondent No. 3 entered into a leave and licence agreement with the petitioner's husband vis-a-vis the said room whereby she placed the petitioner's husband in occupation of the room. The agreement was to be for a duration of 11 months and was to expire on 10-6-1977. While the agreement was in force on 31-1-1977 the third floor of the building caught fire and all the tenements on the said floor were burnt down. Accommodation had to be provided to the persons displaced and various records had to be prepared. In the record of tenants the name of the third respondent was entered. In relation to temporary accommodation a n...
Vishwanath Pundlik Chavan Vs. Sau. Nirmala and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1262; I(1994)DMC410
ORDER1. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the husband against whom an order of maintenance has been passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has also passed an order of maintenance in favour of the child. That was in Misc. Criminal Case No. 450/87 decided on 15-7-1988 and each of them, namely, wife and the child was awarded Rs. 250/- per month by way of maintenance. 2. The applicant-husband challenged the order of the learned Magistrate by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 221/88 which came to be however, dismissed on 17-6-1989. Aggrieved by these two orders, the present application has been filed. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant-husband stated that the wife on her behalf and on behalf of the child filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 103/76 for maintenance and the learned Civil Judge on 22-12-1978 awarded maintenance amount of Rs. 50/- per month to the wife and Rs. 25/- per month to child. The applicant...
Militant Security Bureau Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. B.R. Heher and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR669; [1991(63)FLR272]; (1995)IIILLJ49Bom
M.F. Saldanha, J1. This petition raises an issue of considerable importance as also of far-reaching social consequence. It is, therefore, necessary to briefly set out the controversy in issue.2. The petitioner No. 1, M/s. Militant Security Bureau Pvt. Ltd., is a private limited company and the petitioner No. 2 is a Director thereof. The business of the petitioners were that of supplying personnel to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. for being stationed at the different buildings mentioned on page 3 of the petition. These are the various buildings wherein Government officers reside and include such places as the MLAs' Hostel. The Government Labour Officer and Inspector instituted a prosecution before the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Bombay being Criminal Case No. 490/S of 1986 against the petitioners on the ground that they have not conformed with the requirements of the Minimum Wages Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioners filed the present petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »