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.
Deokabai Wife of Namdeo Dhoke Vs. Namdeo S/O Champat Dhoke and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)24; 1995(2)ALT(Cri)10; 1996(1)BomCR374
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Present revision application has been filed by an estranged wife, challenging the acquittal of accused non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5, which included her husband non-applicant No. 1; her father-in-law, non-applicant No. 2; her mother-in-law, non applicant No. 3; and two others, of the offences under sections 498-A, 498-B, 494 and 107 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. All these five accused persons were tried for the abovesaid offences on the complaint of the present applicant. It seems that Police Station, Narkhed took the cognizance of the complaint of the present applicant and proceeded against all these accused persons. It is firstly not known as to how the Narkhed Police filed a charge-sheet under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code also as, in fact, the prosecution under that section could not be launched at the behest of the police. The trial Court, which took the cognizance, also did not realise this and merrily went on to frame a charge under sec...
Subhash Madhav Kale Vs. Kamalakar Gajanan Ghevade and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR359; (1994)96BOMLR183
A.V. Savant, J.1. This petition along with the companion matter, being Writ Petition No. 5964 of 1986, was heard on the 7th July, 1994 since both the petitions were tagged on together. The reason seems to be that the landlords in both the premises are common, though the tenant-petitioner is different. Moreover, the facts of both the petitions are more or less identical. The matter was adjourned on the last occasion in order to enable Shri Murthy and Shri Pradhan to prepare the synopsis and the statement of the dates of payment of rent, as was done in Writ Petition No. 5964 of 1986. The synopsis alongwith the statement of dates of payment of rent, which is now produced before me, is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. It must be stated in fairness to Shri Pradhan that he did not dispute the correctness of the said synopsis and the statement of the dates of payment of rent.2. This is a petition filed by the original defendant/tenant against the judgments and decrees passed...
Narsi Damaji Somaiya Vs. Ramdas Govind Kamat and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR675
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. The challenge in this petition is the order of the Administrative Tribunal dated 23-3-1990 in Eviction Appeal No. 38 of 1988 dismissing the petitioners application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order of his eviction passed ex parte by the Additional Rent Controller on 23rd June, 1988 in Case No. Bldg/3/ARC-III/88.2. The case of the petitioner is that by a deed of lease dated 14-3-1984 the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called 'the respondent') let out to him shop No. 1 in his building known as Samadhan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., at Malbhat, Margao, Goa, on a monthly rent of Rs. 800/-. Subsequently another shop being shop No. 2 in the very some building was leased to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bombay and the suit shops are being used by him as office-cum-go downs for the purpose of his business of transportation of goods. On 26-2-1988 an application was filed by the respo...
Ramani Brothers and anr. Vs. Venetexa Naique Batcar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR33
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal dated 10th May, 1990 in Eviction Appeal No. 6 of 1985 which has affirmed the judgment and order of the Rent Controller, Goa North Division, Panaji, dated 23rd April, 1984 in Case No. Rent/122/82. By the aforesaid order the Rent Controller granted an application filed by the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called the respondent) under section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act) and directed the petitioners to vacate the suit premises within thirty days from the receipt of the order and hand over peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent.2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and the petitioner No. 2 is one of its partners. The petitioner is a lessee of the respondent in respect of one of the divisions of the building situated at Swami Vivekanan...
Kores (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT74Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the order in original No. S/10-235/86G dated 1-10-1986 ordering confiscation of a consignment declared to be externally upset seamless drill rods. These rods are used for boring the ground and they are claimed to be the component parts of drilling rigs, which are manufactured by the appellants. They claimed clearance under OGL Appendix 6 List 8 Part I Serial No. 523 of AM 1985-88, which covers pressure and non-pressure pipes and tubes other than those covered by Appendix 3. It is their contention that they are seamless alloy and carbon steel pipes and tubes, which are meant for use as a component in the drilling rig. However, the department objected to the clearance on the ground that drill tubes are specifically covered by Appendix 3 Serial No. 571(c). Serial No. 571(c) of Appendix 3 seeks to cover seamless carbon steel tubes/casings hollows/drill tubes and pipes and blanks thereof and any other cylindrical hollow shaped carbon steel. In this case, though...
B.D.A. Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India, and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Bom14; 1995(1)MhLj91
ORDERA. M. Bhattacharjee, C. J. 1. In opposing this appeal against the orders of the learned single Judge, appointing ad interim Receiver and also granting ad interim injunction, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the 1st respondent, Central Bank of India, has firstly urged that the appeal is not maintainable. The learned Advocate General contended that the orders being ad interim and subject to further and final hearing, do not have any finality in order to become a'judgment' within the meaning of Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent and are not accordingly appealable under that clause. The learned Advocate General has mainly relied on the well-known decision of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben, : [1982]1SCR187 and relying mainly on the observations contained in paragraphs 119, 223 and other paragraphs, the learned Advocate General has urged that an interlocutory order in order to be appealable as a judgment within the meaning of cl. 15 of the Letters Patent must c...
Rambai Laxminarayan Kothari Vs. Municipal Commissioner and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Bom411; 1995(1)BomCR97; (1994)96BOMLR102; 1995(2)MhLj923
1. One Rambhai Laxminarayan Kothari has preferred this appeal against order dated 23rd August, 1978 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Municipal Appeal No. M/324 of 1977. The said municipal appeal was filed by La'Builds Corporation as well as Shri Rambhai L. Kothari as the appellants. This appeal is filed under Section 218D(1)(d) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Section 218D(1)(d) of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from any decision of the Chief Judge in an appeal under Section 217 upon a question of law or usage i having force of law or the construction of a document. By the order under appeal, the learned Additional Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes at Bombay dismissed the above referred Municipal Appeal No. M/324 of 1977. By the said order, the trial Court confirmed the rateable value of the property in question fixed by the Investigating Officer at Rs. 82,070/-. The relevant facts are brief...
B.D.A. Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas449(Bom)
A.M. Bhattacharjee, C.J. 1. In opposing this appeal against the orders of the learned single judge, appointing an ad interim receiver and also granting an ad interim injunction, the learned Advocate-General, appearing for the first respondent, Central Bank of India, has, firstly, urged that the appeal is not maintainable. The learned Advocate-General contended that the orders being ad interim and subject to further and final hearing, do not have any finality in order to become a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent and are not accordingly appealable under that clause. The learned Advocate-General has mainly relied on the well-known decision of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania : [1982]1SCR187 , and relying mainly on the observations contained in paragraphs 119, 123 and other paragraphs, the learned Advocate-General has urged that an interlocutory order in order to be appealable as a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the L...
Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Karim Munafkhan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR242; [1994(68)FLR421]; 1995(1)MhLj613
Pendse, J.1. The respondent No. 1 joined the services of the appellant company with effect from April 10, 1974 and was working in the Stitching Department. The employees of the appellant company were members of Carona Sahu Co. Employees Union. In year 1981 some of the workmen because the members of Maharashtra General Kamgar Union. Due to inter-union rivalry, the workmen resorted to go-slow tactics from June 1, 1982 and respondent No. 1 indulged in instigating and exciting other workmen to resort to go-slow tactics. The respondent No. 1 also indulged in intimidation and violence. The Company thereupon served charge-sheet dated June 13, 1982 and suspended respondent No. 1 with immediate effect. The departmental enquiry was held against respondent No. 1 and the workmen was dismissed from services with effect from April 23, 1983. 2. The respondent No. 1 sought reinstatement and after consideration of failure report, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (C), Bombay in exercise of powers under...
Joint Regional Director, Esi Corporation, Pune Vs. L.D. Bhave and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ300Bom
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has preferred this appeal against order dated 12th July 1979, passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Pune in application (ESI/LPC) No. 5 of 1978. M/s. L. D. Bhave & Sons of Pune, the respondent in this appeal had filed the said application under section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act 1948. By the impugned order, the trial Court declared that the 8 shops enumerated in Exhibit 9 and the central office and the two godowns of the respondent herein, one at Satara Road and other at Apte Road, Pune were not covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act 1948 and that the appellant herein was not justified in calling upon the respondent herein to comply with the provisions of the said Act. 2. The respondent in this appeal is a partnership firm carrying on business as an agent of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation for retail distribution and sale of their cooking gas within the Municipal and Cantonment limits of Pune. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »