Mumbai Court December 1995 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.
R.H. Khatri Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ808; 1996(2)MhLj680
ORDER1. I have heard Mr. A. P. Mundargi for the applicant and Mr. I. S. Thakur learned APP for the State. I have also perused the order dt. 8-12-95 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay refusing anticipatory bail to the applicant. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail in a case u/Ss. 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Gambling Act, and Section 25 of the Indian Telegraphs Act. The facts in brief giving rise to this application are as under :- On 5-12-1995, at about 11.45 p.m. an intimation was received by the Kalachowky police station that matka gambling is in operation at the house of one Sunderji Gangar. Immediately, on receipt of the information, a raid was conducted by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-III, in the residential premises of Sunderji Gangar. In the raid, the following things were recovered :- 1) Five junction boxes with hunting lines (I am informed that hunting lines mean parallel telephone exchange). 2) Five telephone instruments; 3) Papers i...
Suraya Ibrahim Shaikh Vs. Ibrahim Rahim Shaikh and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR308; 1996CriLJ2415; II(1996)DMC169
1. This is a revision petition directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 29-10-1988 in Criminal Case No. 532 of 1986 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the second respondent. The first respondent and his Counsel remained absent at the time of hearing.2. The petitioner is the original complainant and the first respondent is the original accused. They are husband and wife. They were living together. According to the wife, the husband was ill-treating and assaulting her and was pressing her to bring Rs. 10,000/- from her brother. Then it is alleged that on 21-10-1986 at about 7.00 p.m. the wife filed a complaint before the police. She was examined by the doctor. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-husband for offences under Ss. 323, 498-A, 342 and 504, I.P.C. The defence of the husband was that he had not committed any such offence. After trial, the lear...
Jibhau Vishnu Wagh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ803
1. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30-1-1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No. 134 of 1994 convicting him under Sections 376, 341 and 342 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo 5 years R.I. under the first count; 6 months R.I. under the third count but awarding no separate sentence under the second count, has come up in appeal before me. 2. The prosecutrix Ashabai Khavale (P.W.1) aged about 8 years is a resident of Tamaswadi, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. The appellant is also a resident of the aforesaid village. On 27-7-1994 at about 1.00 p.m., the prosecutrix had gone to a grocery shop for purchasing oil. While on way to the grocery shop, the appellant caught her and took her to a flour mill. Thereafter, he removed her nicker and committed rape on her. She cried as a consequence thereof; but nobody came to her rescue. The appellant told her that she should wash her clothes; otherwise, he would throw her in the well. The...
Minoo F. Bulsara Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR710; 1997CriLJ168; 1996(2)MhLj999
ORDER1. This is a petition for quashing the issue of process in Criminal case No. 65/S/87 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Bombay, Heard both the sides. 2. The first respondent-original complainant filed a private complaint in the Court below against the petitioner for an offence alleged to have been committed under Section 630 of the Companies Act, the learned Magistrate issued the process to the accused for the said offence. Being aggrieved by the issue of process, the accused has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the process. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the dispute between the parties regarding the flats in question is a bona fide civil dispute and this cannot be agitated in a criminal Court. He, therefore, submitted that the process issued in the case is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent contended...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Vinod Sabaji Loke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ805; 1996(2)MhLj1068
ORDER1. The State of Maharashtra has moved this Court for quashing orders dated April 19, 1995 and November 29, 1995 passed in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 128 of 1994. 2. A brief reference to the relevant facts is necessary for disposing of this application. On March 24, 1994 Shri Daljitsingh Darshansingh Parmar, Assistant Police Inspector attached to Narcotics Cell, Kandivali Unit, Bombay received a secret information that on March 24, 1994 at above 13.00 Hrs. three persons viz. (i) Raju Kamdar, (ii) Vinod Loke and (iii) Maksoom Shaikh who are dealing in narcotic drugs are likely to visit near Asiad S.T. Bus Stand, Dr. B.A. Road, Dadar, Bombay, in order to deliver mandrax tablets to some drug peddlers. The informant had also given the description of these persons. The A.P.I. recorded the information in the information book and passed on the same to his superiors. As per the directions of the superiors, a trap was arranged, a pre-paid panchanama was drawn and the raiding party along with...
Associated Cement Cos. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1995
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Bom)1; [1996]221ITR215(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal, Bombay 'A' Bench, Bombay, has referred the following questions of law to this Court for opinion : At the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction under s. 80-O of the sums of Rs. 62,27,077 and Rs. 22,63,000 in its assessment for asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction for the legal expenses of Rs. 4,84,742 in its assessment for 1972-73 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee for development rebate under s. 33(6) on the cost of the water works in respect of the assessment for asst. yr. 1973-74 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction was allowable as revenue expenditure in the assessment for asst. yr. 1973-74 for the expenditure of Rs. 9,473 incurred...
indofil Chemicals Company, Bombay and Others Vs. Kunwarsingh Madhaosin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1234
ORDER1. This is Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the proceeding in Criminal Case No. 15310 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court. Thane, Heard both the sides. 2. The first Respondent filed a complaint in the Court below against the Petitioners alleging offence under Section 29(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(3) and Section 17(1)(c) of Insecticides Act, 1968. The allegation in the complaint is that the accused No. 1 is a company and accused Nos. 2 to 14 are its Directors and Accused Nos. 15 and 16 are the officers of the Company. The company deals in insecticides. A company or a person engaged in the business of import or manufacture of any insecticide has to apply for registration and get it registered under the Act. The accused No. 1 Company has been importing insecticides by name Dinocap since many years. The application of Accused No. 1 Company given in 1972 for regist...
Oudh Sagar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1995
Reported in: [1996]222ITR726(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 r/w s. 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, at the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal, Bombay 'C' Bench, has referred the following three questions of law to this Court for opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Expln. 1 to r. 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 68,64,000 being the adjustment made in respect of excess depreciation charged in the earlier year could not be treated as part of the capital for the purpose of determining the statutory deduction under s. 2(8) of the said Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of r. 1(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 57,52,837 out of Rs. 68,64,000 is ...
Lalookhan Haideralikhan Vs. M.M. Kamble, Special Executive Magistrate, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ801; 1996(2)MhLj662
1. Rule. With the consent of the parties Counsel Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 waives service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that name of respondent No. 1 be deleted as no relied is claimed against him. His order passed in judicial capacity is under challenge. I order accordingly. 2. Challenge has been made to a show cause notice dated October 12, 1995, issued under Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for short 'the Code'. in this criminal writ petition. 3. The notice says that Special Executive Magistrate has received information from Senior Inspector of Police, Byculla Police Station that the petitioner armed with deadly weapons like hockey sticks is causing trouble to the peace loving citizens. In the report the following instances are cited. '(i) Between 8-7-1992 to 10-9-1992 there was theft of teak wood worth Rs. 65,000/- from a godown situate at Sunderramdas Saw Mill Compound, Opposite Ray Road Station and the pe...
Prakash Shankar Shinde Vs. Rekha Prakash Shinde and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ800; II(1996)DMC381; 1996(2)MhLj624
ORDER1. The petitioner, Prakash Shankar Shinde, has challenged order dated March 2, 1995 passed in Petition No. E 1421/94, in this criminal writ petition. 2. Rekha Prakash Shinde, wife of the petitioner, was awarded maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 45/- per mensem in a petition filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for short 'the Code' on October 13, 1992 by the concerned Magistrate. The wife made an application under section 127 of the Code of August 7, 1994 for enhancing the maintenance allowance. It was stated in the application that the husband was earning more than Rs. 3,000/- and the maintenance awarded to her was inadequate and she was unable to maintain herself with that meagre amount. The learned trial Judge after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that the gross and carry home salary of the husband is Rs. 2282/- and Rs. 1808/- respectively. He further observed that the amount of maintenance granted was inadequate and he accordingly enhance...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »