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.
Sau. Sangeeta Bajirao Suryawanshi Vs. Bajirao Bhimrao Suryawanshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR344; (1995)97BOMLR158; I(1996)DMC345
A.D. Mane, J. 1. There arises an important question on the scope of the provisions of section 23(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the Code) in the matter of transfer of matrimonial proceeding.2. The petitioner is wife of the respondent. The respondent filed Marriage Petition No. 104/A/1992 in the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) for a decree of divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, the Act), whereas, the petitioner filed her Marriage Petition No. 139/1992 for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Act on 30-7-1992 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar (Maharashtra).3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia prays that the Marriage Petition No. 1204/A/1992 which is pending in the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Bhopal be transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar on the ground of her inability to attend the Court at Bhopal. Th...
Parekh Shipping Corporation Vs. Asstt. Collector of Cus., Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1995
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT781(Bom)
M. L. Pendse, Acting C.J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Siodia, learned counsel for the respondents, waives service. By consent, petition taken on record and called out for hearing. Heard counsel. The petitioners were Agents of foreign flag Vessel 'Duke' and which called at the Port of Bombay on March 18, 1983. The petitioners filed Import General Manifest indicating the cargo meant for discharge at the Port of Bombay. After completing discharge, the vessel sailed from Port of Bombay in the third week of March 1983. 2. The respondent No. 1 served show cause notice dated January 19, 1995 on the petitioners claiming that certain goods were reported as short-landed by Bombay Port Trust and the petitioners should account for the same or explained the short-landed goods or otherwise the penalty would be imposed under Section 116 of the Customs Act. The service of show cause notice has given rise to the filing of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2A. Shri Venk...
Khandu Pandu Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR28
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18-7-1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 77 of 1990, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to a pay fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month R.I. under section 302 I.P.C., for murdering his wife Sakhubai, has come up in appeal before us.2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 31-1-1990, one Hiraman Pandu Waghmare P.W. 1 and Suresh Tukaram had taken their goats for grazing at about 4.00 p.m. and while they were grazing them, they found a corpse of a women in Chormal nalla situate to the north of village Dhondmal. They narrated this to the Police Patil Gadhave, who has not been examined in the instant case. Police Patil went to the police station Peth and lodged a F.I.R. which was taken down by Head Constable Netawate. On this F.I.R. which was taken down by the Head Constable a case of accidental death ...
Kashinath Baban Palkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR33
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30-7-1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 405 of 1989 convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment of life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months imprisonment, under section 302 I.P.C., has come up in appeal before us. Along with the appellant, his real brother Balkrishna Baban Palkar was also tried. The learned Trial Judge convicted him under section 201 I.P.C. and instead of sentencing him at once directed that he be released under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety to appear and receive sentence when called for during the next three years and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour. He however, has not chosen to file any appeal.2. The prosecution case in brief as it emerges from the recitals contained i...
J.B. Rupani Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1995
Reported in: 1996(81)ELT56(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. On June 9, 1978 Government of India issued Notification No. 117 of 1978 exempting specified goods from payment of customs duty if the goods are imported against advance licence. The petitioner who was carrying on business in the name of M/s. Bharat Export Corporation secured advance import licence on January 28, 1981 for import of polyester fibre with duty entitlement certificate. The value of the two licences was Rs. 30,48,606/- and Rs. 25,95,187/-. Against the advance licence dated January 27, 1981 the supporting manufacturer was shown as M/s. Silver Cotton Mills Company Limited, Ahmedabad, but subsequently the name of the manufacture was deleted and the name of M/s. Super Spinners was substituted. In respect of the other advance licence dated June 3, 1981 M/s. Super Spinners were mentioned as supporting manufacturers. 2. The first import consignment arrived at Bombay Port on December 16, 1981 and the last consignment on September 22, 1982. The Customs authorities, on in...
Sayed Ahmed Ali Kari Alias Munna and Etc Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR153; (1995)97BOMLR435; 1995CriLJ3585
Sahai, J.1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same set of facts, we propose disposing them of by a common judgment. Vide judgment and order dated 12-8-1993, Shri V. C. Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 66 of 1990, and Sessions Case No. 49 of 1991, convicted the appellants of both the appeals on two counts, namely Section 387 read with Section 34 IPC and 302 read with Section 34 IPC; whereas under the first count, he awarded each of the appellants a sentence of five years RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further undergo RI for 30 days, on the second count, he sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 30 days. The substantive sentences of the appellants were directed to run concurrently. These convictions and sentences have been challenged in the present appeals. 2. The prosecution in brief, as emerging from the recitals contained in the F...
ilac Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR476]
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. By this Writ Petition ILAC Limited (which is under B.I.F.R.) seeks to challenge order of Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 25.7.1985 refusing permission to the Company to lay-off the workmen working in the six factories of the Company. 2. The facts of the case are briefly required to be stated. The said Company owns six factories. The said Company manufacturers P.V.C. Prior to 1983 the said factories purported to be closed on the ground of adverse import conditions. The Government refused to grant permission to close down the factories. Thereafter, on 29.5.1985, Company sought permission of the Labour Commissioner under Section (25-M) to lay-off the workmen with effect from 23.5.1985 on the ground of shortage of electricity supply. By impugned order dated 25.7.1985, the Deputy Labour Commissioner rejected the permission on the ground that there was no shortage of power; that the Company did not pay electricity bills of Tata Powers Company and despite opportunities be...
Solapur Zilla Parishad Vs. Chandrakant Shankarrao Kshirsagar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR536
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. The only question of law to be decided in this second appeal is whether the lower appellate Court was entitled to grant the relief of forfeiture under section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act in favour of the appellant-tenant.2. The appellant in this case is the original plaintiff. It is the case of the appellant - Solapur Zilla Parishad, Solapur, District Solapur, that they are the owners of a shop premises bearing Shop No. 11 of Municipal House No. 116, City Survey No. 8503 and 8504, locally known as Jawaharlal Nehru Vidyarthi Vastigraha, situated at Murarji Peth, Solapur. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said shop was given on leave and licence agreement dated 30th May, 1979 on a licence fee of Rs. 350/- per month to the defendant. According to the plaintiff, respondent-defendant had committed defaults and, therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 815 of 1983 for recovery of possession of the suit shop and also for recovery of a...
Suresh Krishna Katkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR232; 1995CriLJ3579
Majithia, J.1. Suresh Krishna Katkar, original accused No. 1 appellant, has challenged his conviction and sentence recorded in Sessions Case No. 157 of 1992, by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by judgment and order dated September 3, 1993, in this criminal appeal. He was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 for committing the murder of Maruti Sidu Gade, brother-in-law (wife's brother) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution version as emerges from the evidence on record, briefly put, is thus : Anant Vithal Jadhav, Police Patil of village Nanded, District Pune on October 6, 1991, at about 10.00 p.m. was informed by his cousin brother Uttam Dattatraya Jadhav that one person having several injuries was lying by the side of the Campus of C.W.& P.R.S. at 4 feet distance from the main Pune-Sinhagad Road. He went to the spot with some other villagers. He found that an unknown person was lying unconscious having injuries on the neck and the back of ...
Primetime Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.V. Shahadadpuri and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1995
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Bom)74; [1996]217ITR417(Bom)
ORDER OF PURCHASE--Findings based on facts.Ratio & Held :The decision of the authority proceeds on appreciation of evidence and being a pure finding of fact cannot be disturbed in exercise of writ jurisdiction.Application :Also to current assessment years.Income Tax Act 1961 s.269UD(1)Constitution of India art 226Compulsory purchase of immovable property by Central Government--WRIT PETITION AGAINST ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »