Mumbai Court July 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.
Vishwanath S/O Karnuji Londhe Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR641; 1995CriLJ2571; 1996(1)MhLj114
1. The accused/appellant challenges his conviction in this appeal for the offence punishable under S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the consequent sentence passed by the Special Judge, Yavatmal. 2. First the basic facts :- The accused/appellant at the relevant time was working as a Clerk and was posted as the Court Shirestedar of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. He was posted at Pusad. Complainant Ramesh who was a regular court-bird was facing number of prosecutions against him. Not only he but his brother Suresh Arya also faced several prosecutions. It is the prosecution case that on one occasion when complainant Ramesh failed to attend the Court, a non-bailable warrant was issued against him. It was on 1-8-1986 that the complainant Ramesh came to know that the arrest warrants were issued against his brother Suresh Arya also who was a co-accused in one case and, therefore the accused had asked him to attend the Court on 4-8-1986. It is the prosecutio...
Bhausaheb Jagannath Chavan Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR383
A.D. Mane, J.1. This Criminal Writ Petition arises out of the proceedings under sections 56 and 60 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951-(for short, the Act).2. The respondent No. 2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vaijapur, in exercise of his powers under section 56(bb) of the Act, passed an order on 30-9-1993 externing the petitioner out of Districts Aurangabad, Nasik and Ahmednagar for a period of one year. That order of externment was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal under section 60 of the Act before the respondent No. 1-State of Maharashtra but his appeal was dismissed on 5-5-1994. The petitioner, therefore, challenges the impugned order on the ground of non-application of mind and also that the order of exterminate suffers from mala fides.3. The petitioner is a permanent resident of village Walad, Taluka Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. Since 4-5 years, the petitioner has, however, been residing at Aurangabad and earning his livelihood by working as a rickshaw driver. The petitioner s...
The Belganda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Keshav Rajaram Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR285; (1994)96BOMLR769
M.S. Vaidya, J.1. This is a writ petition to challenge the judgment dated 23-12-1981 passed by the President, State of Maharashtra Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay in Revision Application No. 15 of 1981. An application raising an objection to the jurisdiction of the Judge of the Co-operative Court, to entertain and try Case No. 689 of 1979 was rejected by the Judge of the Co-operative Court, Jalgaon, under its judgment and order dated 26-3-1980. The same was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal had allowed the Revision Petition 2. The relevent facts may be stated as follows:-The petitioner- Karkhana had invited tender for construction of godown and the respondent had responded to that invitation and had submitted a tender. His tender came to be accepted and the contract was given to him to construct the godown in 1975. Some time in July or August, 1977, the respondent stopped the construction of the work despite the fact that the Karkhana had allegedl...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Zenith Steel Pipes and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1994
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ9Bom
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The Employees' State Insurance Court has preferred this appeal against order dated 30th December, 1986 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court, Bombay on Application (ESI) No. 27 of 1984. 2. By the impugned order, the trial Court held that the appellant establishment was not a 'shop' under notification No. ESI - 1677/3910/PH-15 dated 18th September 1978 issued by the Government of Maharashtra extending the provisions of the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948 to other establishments and the establishment was not covered under the provisions of the said Act with effect from 12th November, 1978. The trial Court also held that the two orders dated 10th May, 1982 imposing damages amounting to Rs. 29,274/- on the respondent herein were not valid. In view of the above findings, the trial Court passed necessary consequential orders. 3. It appears that the trial Court mainly relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Dattaram Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. Th...
Bharat Yeshwant Hegade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR479
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the order dated 30-12-1987 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 112 of 1987, convicting him under section 307 I.P.C. and 506 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo five years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo 6 months R.I. under the first count and to one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo R.I. for 2 months has under the second count has come up in appeal before me. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Mangala Shivaji Hegade is the wife of the Shivaji Yeshwant Hegade. Her husband Shivaji had eight brothers. One of them being the appellant. All the brothers along with their families lived in different portions of the same house. Her husband Shivaji had a second wife namely Dhondawabai. On 23-11-1986, some time in the evening the appellant demanded Rs. 200/- from Shivaji and on the latter's refusal, is alleged to have thre...
Vidyaprasarak Samaj Vs. the Director of Education, Govt. of Goa and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1994
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR461
A.A. Halbe, J.1. The important question posed in this writ petition is whether seeking permission by the school for opening higher classes of secondary stage tentamounts to opening a new school and that the conditions laid down in Rule 31 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986 can be enforced in that process.2. The petitioner Vidya Prasarak Samaj is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is running a school known as Vidya Prasarak High School, Morjim, Pernem, Goa. The grievance made by the petitioner society is that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 - respectively Chairman and Head Master of Shramik Sudharak Shikshan Sanstha which runs Peter Alvares Memorial High School at Morjim - sought for permission to open new standards VIIIth, IXth and Xth at various times inspite of the fact that the High School of the petitioner is existing in that locality namely Morjim, Pernem, Goa since last several years, and further that the Director of Education was...
Taher Alimohohamad Poonawala Vs. Quizar Shaikh Nomanbhoy and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Bom422; 1995(1)BomCR84; (1994)96BOMLR89; 1995(1)MhLj906
1. This is an appeal against order dated 28th October 1982 passed by the court of 6th Extra Assistant Judge, Pune in Miscellaneous application No. 171 of 1979. This appeal is preferred by one Taher Alimohohamad Poonawala (Original Respondent No. 3 in Misc. Application No. 171 of 1979).2. On 9th February 1976, the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay issued a notice under section 50-A(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 numbered as Misc. Proceeding No.50-A/185 of 1975. It was recited in the said notice that the learned Charity Commissioner was of the opinion that (1) Anjuman-e-Taheri Trust B-151 (Poona) and (2) Saifi Mahal Trust B-150 (Poona) ought to be amalgamated and a common scheme was necessary for such amalgamation in the interest of the proper management and administration of the. two trusts referred to therein. By the said order notice, the trustees of the two trusts were called upon to show cause as to why the said trusts should not be amalgamated and as to why ...
Jagannath Narayan Nikam and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR570; 1996(2)MhLj1857
1. The appellants aggrieved by the order dated 14-12-1987 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Thane in sessions case No. 513/1986 convicting them under section 147 IPC., 148 IPC and 326 read with 149, IPC and sentencing them to undergo a separate sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment under the first two counts and 4 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- under the 3rd count, had come up in appeal before me. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 27-6-1986, at about 5.30 p.m. all the appellants along with 15 to 20 absconding Adiwasis formed unlawful assembly in village Jawsai, Kathopada, Ambarnath, Taluka Ulhasnagar, District-Thane with the object of committing murders of the complainants Ramanand Ramakamalaprasad Yadav, Jahir Abbas, Dineshsingh, Krishnalal and Sanjay Patil. It is alleged that all the appellants were armed with deadly sticks. It is said that as a result of assault by the appellants Jagganath Narayan Nikam and Suresh Kamlu Makane with ...
Shree Mahavir Ispat Ltd. and Another Vs. Mohammed Ismail Siddiqui
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ779Bom
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the orders of the Labour Court, Thane, dated April 18, 1985 and January 24, 1986 made under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The salient facts relevant for deciding this writ petition are as under : The First Petitioner is a Company which carries on the business of manufacturing Steel Ingets and Rolled Products. The First Respondent was employed in the service of the First Petitioner as an Electrician from or about 1979. He was paid a salary of Rs. 850 per month. While in service he was given a letter dated March 31, 1981, by which he was informed that he had been appointed as an Electrical Supervisor with effect from November 3, 1979 and that his services had been confirmed with effect from May 3, 1980. Apart from describing him as an Electrical Supervisor, this letter of appointment doe...
The Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Ltd., Pune Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR230]; (1995)ILLJ773Bom
1. The appellants are a public limited company carrying on business in electrical, mechanical or general engineering products. On March 16, 1984 the Regional provident Fund Commissioner informed the appellants that the establishment was brought within the purview of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with effect from September 30, 1983. Prior to this date, the company had constituted a separate fund for conferring the benefits on the employees with effect from June 30, 1980. The separate fund created by the appellant company was exempted under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 2. On April 13, 1984 the appellant company filed an application for exemption of application of provisions of the Act in accordance with Section 17. The section inter alia provides that the appropriate Government may by notification in the Official Gazette exempt whether prospectively or retrospectively any of the provisions of any scheme to any establishment to which the Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »