Mumbai Court June 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.
Mohmad Iqbal Gulam and anr. Vs. Abdul Rajjak Lalmiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR548
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J. 1. This is a petition filed by a tenant challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 19-2-1994 in Civil Appeal No. 257 of 1991 on the file of the District Judge, Nasik.2. The respondent landlord filed an eviction suit against the petitioners on many grounds. After trial, the trial Court held that landlord has failed to prove any of the contentions and dismissed the suit. The matter was taken up in appeal where the District Judge who also held that the plaintiff has failed any of the four grounds which were pressed before him. Being aggrieved by that order, the plaintiffs have come up with this writ petition.3. In this petition the learned Counsel of the petitioners has challenged only one finding of the District Judge namely, that the tenant had committed breach of the conditions in the lease deed in not vacating the suit premises as agreed in the lease deed. It appears there is one condition in the lease deed under which the tenant had agreed to vacate the suit premi...
Nandkishore Alias Kishore Bhimrao Kshirsagar Vs. the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1995
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR315; 1995CriLJ3706; 1996(1)MhLj145
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J. 1. The appellant Nandkishore alias Kishore Bhimrao Kshirsagar was tried along with his father Bhimrao Dhondiram Kshirsagar, his mother Shakuntala Bhimrao Kshirsagar and his brother Sanjay Bhimrao Kshirsagar for offences punishable under Sections 302 read 34, I.P.C., 498A read with 34 I.P.C., and 304B read with 34, I.P.C. After the trial vide judgment and order dated 30th March 1993 passed by the Sessions Judge Sangli in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1993 the appellant Nandkishore alias Kishore Bhimrao Kshirsagar was convicted under Sections 304B, I.P.C. and 498A, I.P.C.; whereas on the first count he was sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment; under the second count he was sentenced to a term of 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentence were...
N.N. Ship Builders and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1995
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT21(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The short question which arises for determinations in the present case is whether the petitioners were required to be registered as Small Scale Industrial Unit for claiming the benefit of importing components through Open General Licence under the said AM 1985 Policy. 2. The facts giving rise to this Petition, briefly, are as follows :- Petitioners are manufacturers of trawlers and tugs. Petitioners entered into a contract with Bombay Port Trust on 14th February, 1984 to manufacture tugs. Pursuant to the said contract, B. P. T. issued letter of Authority in favour of the petitioner on 21st February, 1985 enabling petitioners to import components for manufacture of tugs for B. P. T. Pursuant to the said contract, petitioners imported propellers under two consignments and claimed clearance for home consumption under O. G. L. vide Appendix 6 Serial No. 1 of the above mentioned Import Policy in the year 1984-1985. The Additional Collector of Customs held that the petitio...
Mds Switch Gear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT550(Bom)
Pendse, Acting C.J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are challenging show-cause notice dated September 3, 1986 issued by Superintendent, Central Excise, Bombay and the copy of which is annexed as Exh. 'F' to the petition. The show-cause notice sets out that excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,08,763.21 is recoverable from the petitioners for period from March 1986. The petitioners are called upon to show-cause why such duty should not be recovered under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the legality of the said show-cause notice. 2. Shri Shroff, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the exercise of quasi-judicial power in issuing impugned show-cause notice is based upon extraneous consideration, inasmuch as the show-cause notice is issued on the basis of some clarifica...
Ralliwolf Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT579(Bom)
Pendse, Acting C.J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act and runs a factory at Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Mulund, Bombay for manufacture of portable power tools which were classified under Tariff Item No. 51A of the Central Excise Tariff. The Company also manufactures armatures and field coils which are used as components in the manufacture of portable power tools. The Company had claimed that the parts which constitute the electric driving mechanism and an integral part of the portable tools were not electric motor under Tariff Item 30. The Central Board of Revenue had informed the Company in 1961 that levy of excise duty is not permissible in respect of electric motors and tools. 2. It is the claim of the petitioners that upto January 2, 1984 the duty was paid on parts as parts of electric motors under Tariff Item No. 30D of Central Excise Tariff. The Company filed fresh classification list and classified parts under Tariff Item No. 68, which is residuar...
Dagdubai W/O Mohanrao Shinde Vs. Mohanrao S/O. Sajirao Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR436; (1995)97BOMLR336; II(1995)DMC512
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Dadgubai w/o. Mohanrao Shinde filed an application purporting to be under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the maintenance which was granted to her in the earlier proceedings i.e. Misc. Application No. 75 of 78 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Latur. The learned Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the said application on the ground that in the earlier proceeding there was only a compromise and unless there is an order of the Court granting maintenance application for variance of the maintenance under section 127 is not maintainable. This order passed by the learned IIIrd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur on 28/12/1987 in Misc. Application No. 410 of 1987 was challenged in the Criminal Revision No. 20 of 1989 which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur was pleased to dismiss on 15/7/1989. This application challenges these orders.2. In Misc. Application No. 73 of 78, an application for maintenance was filed ...
Surendra Vassant Sirsat of Mapusa, Goa Vs. Legislative Assembly of Sta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom10; 1996(2)BomCR362; (1995)97BOMLR621
ORDERDhanuka, J.1. The petitioner is a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa duly elected from Mapusa Constituency. The respondents Nos. 2 and 5 are also Members of the said Legislative Assembly. On 16th January, 1995, the respondent No. 5 was declared elected as the Honourable Speaker of the said Assembly. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No. 5 as Speaker of respondent No. 1 Assembly on various grounds set out in the petition and has sought various reliefs as set out in prayer clauses of the petition. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have contended at the outset that this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition in view of the constitutional bar contained in Articles 212(1) and 212(2) of the Constitution of India.2. We shall consider the various submissions made by the learned counsel on either side in due course.3. The Governor of ...
Arlene Uday Heble Vs. Uday Laxman Heble
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR219
A.V. Savant, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the wife-Arlene Heble against the Judgment and Decree dated 27th April, 1983 passed by the Family Court, Bombay, in Petition No. A-85/90. The said petition was filed by the respondent/husband - Uday Laxman Heble on January 30, 1990 claiming that the marriage solemnised with the appellant on the 7th August, 1981, at Muscat, be dissolved by a decree of divorce and that the custody of their two minor children : Namrata - born on 11th August, 1983 and Sidharth -born on 15th September, 1986 be given to him. The brief facts leading to the dispute are as under :2. The appellant-wife has passed her senior Cambridge Examination from a convent school at Deolali, Nasik, whereas the respondent-husband has passed B.A. (Hons) with Economics from Delhi University. The wife is an Anglo Indian Christian and the husband is a Hindu. The husband was a bachelor working in Muscat in 1981. The wife was a divorcee, having two daughters Melissa and Merelyn from her ...
Suresh Rajkumar Seth Vs. the Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR18; 1995CriLJ3703; 1995(2)MhLj747
ORDER1. The petitioner who is the son of the detenue seeks to impugn an order of detention passed by Shri Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India in his capacity as an officer specially empowered under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), bearing No. F. No. 673/91/94-CUS. VIII dated 1st June 1994. The said order was served on the detenue of 28th of June 1994 and the grounds of detention were served on the detenue pari passu with the order of detention. The order of detention and the consequent detention of the detenue is impugned in the present petition. 2. Shri Karmali, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition has agitated only one ground viz., the ground which he has taken up by way of additional ground of challenge being ground No. 12, which has been permitted to be taken by virtue of petition being permitted to amended. It has been submitted in the sai...
Mahadev Sonu Pardhi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR40
G.R. Majithia, J.1. Mahadev Sonu Pardhi - accused - appellant who was charged for intentionally and knowingly causing the death of his wife Sou. Madhavi and son Sharad was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg at Sawantwadi and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by judgment and order dated August 10, 1995.2. The prosecution story, as stand unfolded at the trial, briefly put is as under :The complainant-Dnyanoba Sonu Pardhi is the real brother of the appellant. He resides in 1/2 portion of the ancestral house along with his father Sony, wife Manisha and sons Nilesh and Sadan. The remaining half portion is in occupation of Kashiram Pardhi, cousin of the complainant. The complainant's father had a second house adjoining to the house occupied by the complainant. Half portion of the second house was in possession of the appellant and the remaining was occupied by Dattaram, real brother of the complain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »