Mumbai Court September 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.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Anarkhan Sulemankhan Musalman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom251; 1992(3)BomCR735
1. The State has challenged the order of acquittal of the respondent passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,Wani acquitting the respondent of the offence for contravention of S. 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 punishable under S. 123 of the said Act.2. Relevant facts are that the respondent was found carrying 20 passengers in the truck driven by him bearing No. MHG 784 on 24-9-1982 by P. W. 1 Suresh Sant, Security Officer, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. Respondent had no pass or permit in his possession allowing the carriage of passengers in the said truck. Therefore, he was prosecuted for contravention of S. 42 punishable under S. 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.3. The learned Magistrate accepting the position that factually respondent was carrying passengers in his truck on the date in question without any pass or permit in his possession, came to the conclusion that inasmuch as S. 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act says that no owner of the motor vehicle shal...
Dattatrey S/O Champatgir Giri Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2181
1. By this application under S. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant challenges the order of maintenance dated 13-7-1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharni, awarding maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month to non-applicant No. 2 as confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Revision Application No. 113/91. 2. The undisputed facts are that, the applicant and non-applicant No. 2 are husband and wife. They were married on 9-12-1984. In December 1985 non-applicant No. 2 left the residence of the applicant. The applicant, therefore, filed a Hindu Marriage Petition bearing No. 103/86 for restitution of conjugal rights under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. The learned Trial Judge held that the applicant had failed to prove his case and, therefore, he dismissed the restitution application on 5-2-1987. The applicant, therefore, filed Civil Appeal No. 69/87. While the said appeal was pending, non-applicant No. 2-wife on 18-3-1987 filed an application...
Smt. Sonali Vilas Ghag Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR211
S.W. Purnik, J.1. Petitioner Smt. Sonali is the wife of the detenu Vilas Ghag, who has been detained under the National Security Act by an order dated 12-5-1992 issued by the 2nd respondent. The order was served on the detenu on the same day and he has been committed to the Nasik Road Central Prison. The petitioner impugns the said order of detention by way of this writ petition.2. Mrs. Ansari, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that in the instant case even though the order of detention and the order of committal were served on the detenu on 12-5-1992, the grounds of detention and the compilation annexed thereto were not served upon the detenu till 17-5-1992, on which day it was served on him. She, therefore, submitted that the grounds of detention have been furnished beyond the period of 5 days permitted by the National Security Act which has vitiated the right of the detenu to make an effective representation and, therefore, prays that the detention order be ...
M/S. Mahavir Khandsari Sugar Mill and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Ele ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom279; 1993(1)BomCR331; 1993(1)MhLj544
ORDERDaud, J. 1. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 take exception to a money decree passed against them on the basis of certain clauses incorporated in Exh. 96 being an agreement dated 14-12-1973. 2. Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 7 along with two others, who are respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to this appeal, were doing business in the name and style of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 was a partnership firm and had set up a unit at Aklad, Taluka and District Dhule, for the manufacture of Khandsari. To work the machinery installed in the factory, defendant No. 1 required the supply of electrical energy. To enable the supply being made, the plaintiff Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB), which is a licensee within the meaning of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, also described as a supplier, agreed to provide the energy required subject to the terms and conditions set out in Exh. 96. The agreement at Exh. 96 was passed in favour of the supplier for and on behalf of defendant No. 1 by its...
State of Maharashtra Through Shri S.S. Nirkhee, Dist. and Sessions J., ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR118; 1993CriLJ816
A.A. Desai, J.1. On a reference purported to be under sub-sec (2) of S. 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, made on 7-5-1991, by the Sessions Judge, Wardha, these proceedings are initiated. The precise facts leading to this reference, are as thus : Nine persons were charged vide Crime No. 48/90 for the offence punishable under Ss. 376(2)(g), 377, 354 read with S. 34 of I.P.C. Amongst them the accused Sandeep, Alokkumar, Ravindra and Sanjay, during the pendency of investigation, applied for grant of bail. The Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 17-2-1990 rejected their application. They then approached to this Court and the applications came to be rejected on 19-3-1990. Thereafter they applied to the Supreme Court. By order dated 30-3-1990 their applications were rejected. It is reported that thereafter on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. 2. The contemnor/respondent Mr. R. A. Khan was at the relevant time, Chief Judicial Magistrate at Wardha. He was made aware of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijaya Hirasa Kalamkar (Huf)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1992
Reported in: [1998]229ITR772(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur, the following two questions are referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the voluntary disclosure petition made by the assessee was within time ? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that a certificate under section 8(2) of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976, was not a condition precedent for non-inclusion of the disclosed income ?' 2. The basic material facts relevant to record answers to these questions are these : During the course of assessment proceedings for the year 1977-78 (previous year ending Diwali 1976), the Income-tax Officer found that there was a deposit of Rs. 40,000 in the personal books of account of the assessee in December, 1975. The assessee contended that the income was not earned during the previous year b...
NitIn S/O Pralhad Sapkal Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1992
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR373
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These four writ petitions can be disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner in these writ petitions, claim admissions to the First Year M.B.B.S. Course for the academic session 1992-93 against the seats reserved for V.J.N.T. It is not in dispute that there are 11 seats reserved for the V.J.N.T. category for admission to the Government Medical Colleges. It may be seen that the relevant rules for admission to the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the Government Colleges were framed as per the Government Resolution dated 26.5.1992 and according to the said rules, the last date for submission of application forms in accordance with the said rules was 30.6.1992. On 13.7.1992, the provisional merit list of the candidates applying for the First Year M.B.B.S Course was prepared and as regards the reserved category of V.J.N.T., the date for scrutiny of the original certificates fixed as per the said notification dated 30.6.1992 was 22.7.1992 from 2.30 P.M. onwards .1A. Acc...
Shivchalappa Gurumortyappa Loni Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1992
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR268
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. Once again, in this appeal, the all important issue of a defect in relation to the important ingredients of sanction has surfaced. In this instance, the sanction order has been exhibited by consent and it is the correctness of this procedure that has been seriously assailed in the course of the hearing of the appeal. It is essential, however, to recount relevant facts before dealing with this issue. The appellant, at the relevant time, a Minimum Wages Inspector (Agriculture) in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Solapur was admittedly a public servant. It is alleged that one Dnyandeo Jagtap, an agriculturist, had been called to the office as the accused found that he was not maintaining the record in respect of the labourers employed by him. These records which had to be maintained under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act had apparently not been kept. The appellant is alleged to have instructed the complainant, Jagtap, to purchase the relevan...
Star Industrial and Textile Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Som Datt Builders P. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR173; (1993)95BOMLR941
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners seek extension of time for the learned Arbitrators to make their Award.2. On 3rd February, 1983, the petitioners had entered into a contract with one M/s. Sonitex of Algiers for erection of a plant for manufacture of woven blankets and coarse yarn on a turnkey basis. On 8th October, 1982, the petitioners had entered into an agreement with the 1st respondents whereby the 1st respondents were appointed as sub-contractors of the petitioners for the said project on the terms and conditions mentioned therein (for short, hereinafter referred to as `the said agreement'). Clause 11 of the said agreement incorporates an arbitration agreement entered into by and between the petitioners and the 1st respondents. The said Clause 11 reads as under :'Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this agreement during its execution or after the completion or abandonment thereof and which cannot be settled amicably shall be finally referred ...
Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Limited Vs. D.C. Pant and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1992
Reported in: [1993]204ITR113(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged a letter dated May 6, 1991, addressed by respondent No. 1 the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, to respondent No. 3, the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC). 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of South Korea. On September 27, 1982, the petitioner-company entered into a contract with respondent No. 3 (ONGC) for the fabrication of water injection platform facilities at Bombay High. The contract, inter alia, provided that the tax liabilities of the petitioner-company would be borne by respondent No. 3 and that if there was any change in Indian law which affected economically the position of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 would compensate if for the extra costs. 3. The petitioner-company, in turn, entered into a sub-contract with an Italian concern known as 'Micoperi S.P.A.' which is dated December 5, 1982. This Contract contained clauses similar to the clauses in the Contract betwee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »