Mumbai Court September 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.
Yashodabai W/O Kanhayyalal Purushottamdas Saraf Vs. Narayandas Gokulda ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR259; (1992)94BOMLR19
A.V. Savant, J.1. These two petitioners reflect a very sorry state of affairs and they demonstrate how the delay in the system of administration of justice may, possibly, result in defeating the justice of the matter. The two contempt petitions arise out of the reference made by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, on the 30th August, 1980. It appears that though only one reference was made on 30th August, 1980 by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, to this Court, the office has numbered the proceedings initially as Contempt Petition No. 62 of 1980 and again thereafter as Contempt Petition No. 6 of 1981 on a letter dated 1-9-1980 received from the District Judge, Pune. Contempt Petition No. 62 of 1982 appears to be on the basis of the reference made by the learned trial Judge on 30th August, 1980. Contempt Petition No. 6 of 1981 has been numbered on the basis of the letter dated 1-9-1980 received from the District Judge, Pune. Rule in Contempt Petition No. 62 of 1980...
Thakubai Maruti Tupe and ors. Vs. Ankush Hiraman Magar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR602
B.V. Chavan, J.1. A short question that arises in this second appeal is whether the decision of an Agricultural Lands Tribunal in proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act') holding that the inclusion of the Tenancy Act, though not correct in accordance with law, is binding on the Civil Court in a subsequent civil suit filed by the landlord on the footing that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the Tenancy Act.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present second appeal are these.Land Survey No. 103, Hissa No. 17, admeasuring 1 acre and three gunthas situated at Hadapsar, District Pune, belongs to the respondents, the original plaintiffs. It was leased to one Maruti Narayan Tupe who is the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 6. On March 3, 1962, the suit land came to be included within the Municipal limits of Municipal Corporation of Pune. It seems that since...
Kisanrao Manikrao Khopade and Another Vs. Municipal Council, Dhule and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom249; 1991(4)BomCR9; (1992)94BOMLR808
ORDERS. W. Puranik, J.1. The petitioners are residents of Dhule and own property situate within the jurisdiction of Municipal Council, Dhule. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner had submitted his lay out plans for approval to the Municipal Council in respect of land bearing Survey No. 472/ 1 + 2 admeasuring 7 acres 11 gunthas. The Chief Officer of the 1st respondent-Municipal Council has not considered the said plans for approval, but on the contrary he demanded payment of betterment charges at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square metre vide his letter dated 13th February 1991 as a condition precedent for considering the approval of the said plans. The demand is of about Rs. 3,75,000/-. It is the contention of the 1st petitioner that the said letter, Exhibit 'A' to the petition, is without the authority of law. He further submits that the Municipal Council is not authorised to claim betterment charges at the time of sanctioning of lay out plans as there is no such pr...
Arat Electro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR710; 1991LC490(Bombay); 1992(58)ELT186(Bom); 1993(1)MhLj269
Sujata Manohar, J.1. These writ petitions relate to import of zinc ash. The petitioners in these petitions have imported zinc ash after March 1981 at various times as set out in each of the petitions. They have challenged in these petitions the levy of additional customs duty on zinc ash under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. Under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962, duties of customs shall be levied at such rates as they may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or any other law for the time being in force, on goods imported into, or exported from, India. Under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, any article which is imported into India shall, in addition, be liable to a duty (hereafter in this section referred to as the additional duty) equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India and if such excise duty on a like article is leviable at any percentage of its value, the additional duty ...
Roplas (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1991
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT511(Bom)
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The petitioners are manufacturers of various fibre glass reinforced plastic articles such as jeep bodies, side cars, galley carts, chemical equipment, automotive items, etc. They also manufacture certain types of food trolleys/carts, beverage and/or bar trolleys/carts. They are specially manufactured by the petitioners for supply of these items to the Indian Airlines and Air-India for use in various aircrafts. They are of different dimensions so as to fit the various equipments in a particular type of aircraft. Unlike the normal kitchen trolleys, these trolleys manufactured by the petitioners for use in aircraft also have space for storage of trays and beverages to be placed in an insulated space below the top tray. When they are not in actual use in the aircraft, they are fitted in the special niches provided for them in the galley by means of a fastening mechanism. They are mostly of aluminium frame and their body is made of fibre glass or decorative laminate. 2. T...
Vinayak Laxman Vartak Vs. Laxmidas Vithaldas Ganatra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR447
S.M. Duad, J.1. Petitioner, who is accused No. 2 in Criminal Case No. 434/P of 1985 pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court at Girgaon, Bombay, has brought this petition to quash the issue process order against him.2. Respondent No. 1 has filed a complaint in the Court of the afore-mentioned Magistrate ascribing to accused No. 2 and one Amin Hassan the commission of offences punishable under section 288, 403 and 406 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. His case, briefly stated, is that he is a tenant of a building known as 'Kishor Bhavan' situated at 29, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Bombay 400 004. The Bhavan is divided into two parts-one facing the road and the other to its rear. The two parts are separate and distinct. Complainant resides on the front side of the Bhavan on the ground floor. Accused No. 1 is the partner of a firm carrying on the business of Building Contractors and accused No. 2 is a Consulting Engineer. The Maharashtra Housing and Area Dev...
Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Dilipkumar Hiralal Chhatbar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1991
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ826Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the Industrial Court, Pune, dated 28th February, 1983, made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 59 of 1982.2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank and the first respondent was employed by it as a clerk. He was entrusted mainly with the work of typing. Whenever any typewriter went out of order, he was required to get it repaired. He produced two bills dated 10.9.1979 and 7.6.1980 for repairs of the typewriters for Rs. 45/- and Rs. 60/-. He also produced separate vouchers which were purportedly signed by one S.P. Joshi and one S.N. Kulkarni, respectively. On the strength of these receipts and vouchers, purported to have been signed by S.P; Joshi and S.N. Kulkarni for the repairs of the typewriters, the first respondent collected money from the petitioner. It was later on suspected that the first respondent had played a fraud on the petitioner and that money had been collected by him...
Shriram Narayan Dhond and anr. Vs. Demu Surya Gaude
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR251
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. The respondent filed a suit against the petitioners in the Court of the Civil Judge, S.D., Ponda, being Regular Civil Suit No. 32 of 88, for a permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering with his lawful possession in respect of the suit property situated at Betqui, Ponda, and bearing Survey No. 91/4. Along with the suit an application for temporary injunction was also made before the learned Trial Judge. That application was granted by the learned trial Judge who found the respondent to be in possession of the suit land. The petitioners then moved the learned District Judge who in appeal rejected their claim for possession and by the impugned judgment dated 5-7-89 upheld the finding of the learned Trial Judge. Hence the present Civil Revision Application.2. Shri S.K. Kakodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the exercise undertaken by the respondent in filing Suit No. 32 of 88 was not possible under the law. The learned Counsel bro...
Vidarbha Weavers Central Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Civil Judge, Se ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1991
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR943
A.A. Desai, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition against the proceeding initiated by civil suit to declare notice of election as null and void and perpetual injunction from holding election in pursuant thereof, of the Co-operative Society.2. The petitioner is a specified society as envisaged under Section 73G of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has an affiliation with the respondent No. 5 Society. As per Sub-clause (xv) of Clause 24 of the by-laws of the petitioner society, the Board of Directors has to elect one amongst them to be nominated on the respondent No. 5 society. Respondent No. 4 is a nominee of the Collector, who has, on 18.6.1991 issued a notice convening meeting on 29.6.1991 of the Board of Directors of the petitioner society to elect such nominee.3. Respondent No. 2, Narhari Barde is a member of the petitioner as well the respondent society. According to him, as per Clause 29 of the By-laws of the respon...
Nagpur Timber Merchants' Association Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR967
H.D. Patel, J.1. The petitioners in these petitions are either societies, duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, or individuals or partnership firms or the public trust also registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The societies have filed the petitions on behalf of its members, who like other petitioners, were allotted plots either for the purposes greeting structures for residence, industry, commerce or for other non-agricultural purpose. All of them have filed petitions seeking a direction to prohibit the respondent Nagpur Improvement Trust from recovering the land revenue in the form of non- agricultural assessment in respect of plots held by them.2. The Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 was enacted with the sole object of providing planned development of Nagpur City. In order to carry out this object the respondent Nagpur Improvement Trust framed various schemes after acquiring land by following the procedure laid down under Land Acquisition Act. According to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›