Mumbai Court March 1994 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.
Tajul Islam and anr. Vs. Shariyatullah Mansoorali Shaikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR313; (1994)96BOMLR630
B.P. Saraf, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th April, 1992 of the Bombay City Civil Court decreeing the suit of the respondent against the petitioners under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of possession of a room bearing No. 206 situated at Shivajinagar Zoppadpatti, Borivli (the suit premises).2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under: The respondent Shariyatullah Mansoorali Shaikh filed a suit against the petitioners under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The case of the respondent was that he had taken exclusive possession of the suit premises on 23 January, 1984 as per an affidavit dated 23 January, 1984 executed by petitioner No. 2, Janubibi, wife of petitioner No. 1 Tajul Islam. Since then, according to the respondent, he was in occupation of the suit premises till 11-3-1986 when the petitioners, with the help of some others, broke open the lock of the suit premises, threw out the articles of the ...
Shri Shivaji Tukaram Kurle Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR589
E.S. DA Silva, J.1. The appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1992 who has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, for offences under sections 170, 376 and 354 r/w Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and cumulatively sentenced to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- or in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 month.2. The prosecution case in short is that the accused on 14-1-1991, at about 6.30 p.m., by personating himself as Head Constable bearing Buckle No. 1048 and known as Mohammad Muzavar gained an entry into closed hospital premises of I.P.H.B. Altinho, Panaji and attempted to rape a female mental in-patient Zamila Muzavar in the Female Care Unit and also outraged her modesty. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The learned Sessions Judge after recording evidence found him guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him accordingly.3. On behalf of the prosecution 11 witnesse...
Lekhraj Chunilal Jaisingh Vs. Komal @ Anita and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: II(1994)DMC153
V.P. Tipnis, J.By consent of the parties, taken up on board for final hearing.Heard parties.1. This is hopefully the last of the proceedings between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife. The parties unfortunately have been litigating right from 1983. There have been proceedings in the Court at Bangalore for divorce by mutual consent. Thereafter, there have been proceedings in the Court at Bangalore taken out by the husband for divorce on the ground of cruelty which petition has been ultimately allowed. It appears that there have been efforts of compromise and, in fact, certain agreement was reached. However, there were certain disputes. Ultimately, respondent No. 1 wife filed an application on 4th August, 1992 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ulhasnagar, for maintenance. No order of interim maintenance was passed. The petitioner-husband has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings of maintenance filed before the learned J.M.F.C., Ulhasnagar, under the...
Prakash Fabricators and Vs. Collr. of C.E. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT961Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. A-195/92, dated 9-6-1992 of Collector of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Pune. Though in the aforesaid order the Collector (Appeals) have disposed of 4 appeals, in so far as this appellant is concerned, they have filed only one appeal against the Order-in-Original No. VGN(30) 396/Denovo-Adj/T-s/88/288, dated 6-1-1989 of Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Nasik-I Division.2. After hearing both the sides, we find the following position, which is not disputed by both the sides. The appellants holding a Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of parts of Transmission Towers, Welding Masts, Poles etc. They are also a Small Scale Unit availing the exemption under Notification No. 175/86. They received input materials from M/s. Jyoti Structures under delivery challans, on the basis of which they took deemed Modvat Credit in respect of the steel materials, as available to them in terms of the Boards' Order dated 7-4-198...
In Re. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. and in Re. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR225; [1994]81CompCas754(Bom)
N.D. Vyas, J. 1. Company Petition No. 332 of 1993 is filed by Tata Oil Mills Company Limited and Company Petition No. 333 of 1993 is filed by Hindustan Lever Limited. The said companies are hereinafter referred to as 'TOMCO' and 'HLL', respectively. The petitions are under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanctioning a scheme of amalgamation of TOMCO with HLL. The first petition is by the TOMCO, being the transferor-company, and the second petition is by HLL, being the transferee-company. It would be convenient to dispose of both the petitions by a common judgment. 2. TOMCO, the transferor-company, was incorporated on December 12, 1917, for the purpose of, inter alia, manufacturing, marketing, selling and/or distributing oils, soaps, detergents, toiletries and animal feeds. HLL, the transferee-company, was incorporated on October 17, 1933, as a private company and converted into a public limited company on November 1, 1956. During 1991-92, according to TOMCO, it incu...
Yeshwant S/O Ram Bhasmare and ors. Vs. Asrabai W/O Yeshwant Bhasmare a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1994
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR391
M.S. Vaidya, J.1. Heard Mr. S.A. Deshmukh for the petitioners and Mr. Varale, A.P.P. for the State.2. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings instituted in Regular Criminal Case No. 340 of 1991, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur.3. Respondent No. 1 Asrabai had instituted the aforesaid criminal case on a private complaint against 19 persons for offences punishable under sections 494, 109 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After recording the verification on 6.8.1991, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the issuance of process against all the petitioners under his order dated 14.8.1991. Having felt aggrieved by that order, the petitioners have preferred this application, contending that the impugned order was passed by the Magistrate without any application of mind. They had stated in the petition that the petitioners had not preferred any previous appeal or applicat...
Allwyn Osbourne D'Mello Vs. Helen Kitty D'Mello
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1994
Reported in: I(1996)DMC476
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. It is perfectly permissible for a litigant to canvass an alternate pleas which, though at first blush appear to be inconsistent or contradictory, are virtually put forward because the law permits that even if one more of these fail that the party can still sustain the remaining ones. In matrimonial proceedings, for instance, where the validity of the marriage is called into question, it is still open to the petitioner to contend that even if the Court were to held that the marriage was not null and void and is, therefore, saved that a decree of dissolution of marriage on some other grounds could be passed. Though it would prima facie, appear that the pleas are unsustainable insofar as if it is contended that the marriage was a void one that the question of dissolving it on some some other ground cannot arise and conversely that if a plea of dissolution is taken up that it presupposes a valid marriage. These submissions are made in the alternative to each other and w...
Vulcan Lavel Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT764Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order-in-original No.S/10-87/85G dated 19-7-1985, passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay, ordering confiscation of a consignment containing components for High Pressure Homogenizer valued at Rs. 8,49,518/- c.i.f., but allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 4,25,000/-. The allegations as per the show cause notice are that they produced a photo copy of the DGTD certificate attesting the list of items, in which one of the items - special speed reducer (valued at Rs. 65,643) was found included, but in the original certificate issued by the DGTD, this item is not shown and that the photo copy was a forged one produced before the Customs authorities for claiming the benefit in respect of this item for import against the licence, without attestation by DGTD. The other allegation is that though the appellants have some collaboration with the foreign supplier, because of the use of the brand name of the foreign supplier, they have not ...
Gulabsingh Anantramsingh Thakur Vs. the Collector, Amravati, District ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: 1996(1)MhLj549
ORDER1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 1A. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Collector, Amravati, whereby the Collector has cancelled his licence under Form CL. III under the Bombay Prohibition Act (for retail sale of country liquor). The Collector mentioned in the said order that because of the existence of this shop, the social health of the village is being jeopardised and the families of the villagers are perishing. He has further mentioned that because of these reasons, the Gram-Sabha has passed a unanimous resolution and a note to that effect has been taken on the Proceeding Book of the Gram Panchayat. The Collector seems to have acted under section 56 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 2. The only challenge that the petitioner made in this petition is that he was not heard prior to the passing of the order, which has affected him prejudicially and, therefore, the order is in contravention of the established ca...
Jodhram Daulatram Arora and Others Vs. M.B. Kodnani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Bom)166; [1996]221ITR368(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order under section 269UD(1), the petitioners-purchasers seek to challenge the pre-emptive purchase by the Government of flat No. 10 on the third floor in Building No. C. Known as 'Parmar Paradise', admeasuring, approximately, 1,286 sq. ft. along with car parking No. 10, situate at Survey No. 80/A/2 and Survey No. 425, B. J. Road, Pune. 2. Briefly, the facts relevant for deciding the present matter are as follows : (a) By agreement for sale dated July 12, 1993, the petitioners agreed to purchase the above flat from one Jamnadas C. Merchant (i.e., respondent No. 5 herein) for a consideration of Rs. 14,06,000. On the basis of the apparent consideration being Rs. 14,06,000, the rate per sq. ft. of the built-up area of approximately 1,286 sq. ft., works out to Rs. 1,093 per sq. ft. Under the said agreement, it is recited that the petitioners paid the entire amount of Rs. 14,06,000, prior to the agreement dated July 12, 1993. The said amount was pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »