Mumbai Court November 1992 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.
Dagadu Patilba Kharde and anr. Vs. Bhamabai Alias Shamabai W/O Deoram ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1992
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR489; (1993)95BOMLR662
M.S. Vaidya, J. 1. These two First Appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 12th November, 1982 passed by the IInd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmednagar, in Special Civil Suit No.40/1977. The original appellants in First Appeal No.36/1989 were original defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Out of them, original defendant No.1, who was appellant No.1 has died pending these appeals and his legal representatives were brought on record during the pendency of the said appeals. First Appeal No.34/1989 is preferred by original defendant Nos. 4 and 5. As both the appeals were directed against one and the same decree, the appeals were heard together with the consent of the parties and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. That, the facts which were not in dispute before us may be stated at the outset. Defendant No.1 Rambhau had two wives, namely, Kausalyabai and Tanhabai who are appellant Nos.1A and 1B in First Appeal No.36/1989 as legal representatives of deceased Rambhau. Ra...
Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR145
B.P. Saraf, J.1. The writ petitioner 'Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad' a society registered under the Societies Registration Act has filed this petition challenging the supplementary demands raised by the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) on account of water charges and notice dated 9-2-1987 (Exhibit--B) by which the petitioner was asked to pay the amount failing which it was stated that the water connection would be disconnected as per provisions of section 279 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act without any further intimation.2. The petitioner society is approved by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission as it had undertaken the Khadi and Village Industries programme approved by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bombay. The petitioner society is a member of one Kandivali Praful Co-operative Housing society Ltd. (Housing Society) wherein it owns two flats. Sometime in the year 1976 there was a dispute between the housing society and the petitioner society in regar...
Noorjahan Wdlo Altaf Ahmed and ors. Vs. Sadrunnisa Wdlo Haji Fatehulla ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR501; (1993)95BOMLR834
S.M. Jhunjhunwala, J.1. In the month of December ,1984, the plaintiffs have filed this suit for administration of the estate of one Haji Fatehulla Khan son of Talib Khan who died intestate at Fatehpur (U.P.) on 16th December, 1976. Originally this suit was filed in the City Civil Court at Bombay. However, the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs by the City Civil Court for presentation to proper Court. Thereafter, the plaintiffs lodged the plaint in this Court and filed this suit without obtaining leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, when such leave ought to have been obtained prior to lodging of the plaint in this court. The plaintiffs now seek to obtain leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to file the suit in this Court and have applied for condonation of delay in filing the petition for leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent.2. In Para 11 of the plaint filed in the suit, the plaintiffs have averred as follows :''The plaintiffs say that the decea...
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay Vs. P.V. Sabestian Alias Cherian a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR717; (1993)95BOMLR88
M.F. Saldanha, J.1.Two points of some consequence arise for determination in this set of appeals which are summarised below :(a) Whether the Deputy Municipal Commissioner is empowered to delegate the functions that are vested in the Commissioner under the provisions of section 68 of The Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and if so, what is the duration of the powers so delegated and whether they can be said to be circumscribed ward-wise?(b) What should be the approach of the Court in cases where the prosecution alleged that an offence has been continued over considerable period of time ?A few facts are essential :As long back as in the year 1980, the B.M.C. through its legal adviser prosecuted the accused in a series of 11 cases on the allegation that he was running a lodging house on the terrace of a building by the name Kothari Mension at Walchand Hirachand Marg, Fort, Bombay. It was alleged that the accused did possess the requisite licence for running a lodging house in the same buil...
S. Kantilal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajaram Bandekar. (Sirigao) Mines Pv ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas800(Bom)
G.D. Kamat, J.1. This is a petition under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up Messrs. Rajaram Bandekar (Sirigao) Mines Private Limited, for short' the company', on the ground that the company is insolvent and is unable to pay its debts. 2. Messrs. S. Kantilal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (for short' the petitioners claim that a confined debt of Rs. 66 lakhs together with compound interest calculated thereon at the rate of 19.25 per cent. per annum with quarterly rests from August 14, 1989, till the date of payment or realization is not paid despite notice under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. The petitioners as holders of the mining concession known as Doro, situated at Nanora Village of Bicholim Taluka, entered into an agreement on August 4, 1987, by virtue of which Messrs. Narayan R. Bandekar and Sons Pvt. Ltd. (for short' Bandekar Sons'), were permitted to carry out the work of extracting, raising, processing, loading and delivering iron ore into tr...
Shankar Babu Ghavali Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR204; 1993CriLJ1497
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The three Petitioners, Shankar Babu Ghavali, Babaji Rama Ghavali, and Babaji Rama Ghavali, have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 46 of 1978 decided on 27-7-1979 by the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri. They were arrested on 14-6-1978 and since then till this day they continue to be in the portals of the jail. By these three separate petitions, a common relief of order of release on serving fourteen years of imprisonment is sought. Hence they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The Government of Maharashtra has framed the new revised guidelines for premature release under '14 year Rule' of prisoners serving life sentence, after 18-12-1978 on which day Section 433A was introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 433A imposes restrictions on the power of the appropriate Government to remit the sentences of prisoners convicted after 18-12-1978. By these guidelines communicated to t...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Shivprakash Seth and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR714; 1993CriLJ2777; (1999)IIILLJ11Bom
1. The State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the sentence of simple imprisonment for one week and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month each imposed on the directors of the Simplex Woollen Mills Ltd. under Section 14-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The short point raised in the appeal is that admittedly the Accused, who were directors of the Mills, had pleaded guilty to certain breaches of the provisions of the Act on earlier occasions and that, consequently, the sentence imposed, which is below the minimum as prescribed by the Act, is in breach of the provisions of the law. It is pointed out that the Accused had pleaded guilty and that the learned Magistrate has obviously erred because he is precluded in law from having imposed any lesser sentence than the minimum of three months' rigorous imprisonment as provided in the Section. The companion appeals raise the same point, though the p...
K.T. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R.M. Gandhi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR75; [1994(68)FLR562]; (1994)ILLJ66Bom; 1993(1)MhLj947
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated November 5, 1986, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ('the R. P. F. C.'), Maharashtra and Goa, levying damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ('the Act'), for the alleged failure of the petitioners to pay the contributions under the Act for the months commencing from July 1968 to October 1977. 2. Admitted position in this case is that these proceedings were initiated for the first time by issue of notice to show cause on April 19, 1985. The challenge to the order is on the ground, inter alia, that the initiation of proceedings in the year 1985, for the alleged delay in payment of the contribution for the period from July, 1968 to October, 1977, is most unreasonable. A notice issued after long 17 years from the first alleged default and 8 years from the last alleged default is no show-cause notice...
Vittal Venkatesh and ors. Vs. Patheja Forging and Auto Parts Manufactu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR230; (1994)IILLJ1015Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. As these writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution arise from the same judgment and order passed by the learned Labour Judge presiding over the 6th Labour Court, Bombay on June 20, 1986 in Application (IDA) No. 1135 of 1983, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act'), they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner, Vittal Venkatesh, in Writ Petition No.4728 of 1986, (hereinafter referred to as ' the workman') was employed as a Stenographer with effect from October 23,1974 by the first respondent, Patheja Forging and Auto Parts Manufacturers Private Limited, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') of which the second respondent, Mansingh Patheja, is the Managing Director. The Company is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4730 of 1986 wherein the workman is the first respondent.3. According to the workman, he was initially given salary of Rs. 600/- ...
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies Vs. Gurukul Griha Nirman S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR324; (1993)95BOMLR628
H.D. Patel, J.1. A short question arises in this petition and that question is whether an appeal lies against the order of Assistant Registrar directing an enquiry under section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The question arises on the facts stated below.2. The respondent No. 1 is a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The object of the respondent society is to purchase land, divide the same into plots and allot those plots to its members for constructing the houses. The respondent society was superseded and the charge of the society was taken over by the Administrator on 6-5-1985 from the members of the managing committee.3. Vide order passed on 11-11-1985 to the respondent No. 2 was appointed as an Enquiry Officer under section 88 of the Act by the petitioner to assess the damages and losses caused to the society during the period from 1-7-1982 to 30-6-1985 as per audit ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »