Mumbai Court September 1995 Judgments

Smt. Deepa Shashikant Godambe Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR551; (1996)98BOMLR675

A.P. Shah, J.1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail of the benefit of the notification dated October 1, 1994 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under section 46 of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 ('Act', for short) with a view to promote the welfare of the women, is a short question, which falls for my consideration in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. The notification dated October 1, 1994 reads as follows :'Revenue and Forests Department Mantralaya, Bombay 400 032, dated the 1st October, 1994.Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.No. STP/1094/CR-859/M-1.---Whereas, the Government of Maharashtra has recently announced a policy with a view to promote the welfare of the women;And whereas, the said welfare policy for women inter alia, provides for exemption of Court fees for women litigants in cases relating to maintenance, property right, violence and divorce.And whereas, section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (Bom. XXXVI of 1959) empowers the State Govern...

Automatic Electric Ltd. Vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Tipnis

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR542; (1995)97BOMLR665

P.S. Patankar, J.1. In this revision, the main question that arises for my consideration is whether the suit premises were let out for residence as contemplated by section 13-A(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). In other words, whether the Competent Authority under the Act was having jurisdiction to decide the matter.2. A few facts are as follows :---Respondent is the owner of Plot No. 4, Revenue Survey No. 274 situated within Lonavla Municipal Council area. There is a bungalow and outhouse constructed by the respondent. The out-house was consisting of two rooms, two closed Verandas together with bathroom and W.C. It is the suit premises. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is having its manufacturing unit at Lonavala and registered office at Bombay. Under the agreement dated 1st December, 1976, the respondent gave to the petitioner the out-house for a period of two years at ...

Bhugonda Bhau Patil Vs. Acharyaratna Deshbhushan Shikshan Prasarak Man ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR389

P.S. Patankar, J.1. Both these Revisions can be disposed of by this common order as point arising is the same and litigation is also between the same parties.2. The facts in Civil Revision Application No. 471 of 1991 are as under :The petitioner came to be promoted as Principal in Shri Mahavir College run by respondent No. 1, a Society registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and Societies Registration Act, 1860, in June 1977. The respondent No. 1 resolved to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. The charge-sheet was served upon him on 29-5-1989. The petitioner sent his explanation. The respondent No. 2, an Advocate by profession, was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 7-10-1989 by passing a Resolution. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 90 of 1990 for declaration that appointment of respondent No. 2 as enquiry officer was illegal and for permanent injunction restraining him from holding proposed enquiry. It was contended that appointment of respondent No. 2 as enquiry offi...

Cadell Weaving Mill Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

"Whether, the amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000 received by draft dated December 5, 1989, in consideration of surrendering the statutory tenancy rights and/or possessory rights in property situated at Cadell Road, Prabhadevi, Bombay, can be construed to be a casual and non-recurring receipt within the meaning of Section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and as such is exigible to tax under Section 56 of the Act ?" 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of weaving and dyeing cloth. It had entered into two agreements on September 26, 1963, with Elphiston Dye Works Pvt. Ltd., whereunder it became the tenant and obtained leasehold rights in the property situated at Cadell Road, Prabhadevi, Bombay. Since there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the tenanted property, we can hereinafter call it as tenanted premises for the sake of brevity. The period of tenancy agreed upon under the terms of the above two indentures was for 15 years. As per the terms of the lease, the asses...

Namdao Kisan Bhakare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996CriLJ562

1. On 23-3-1993, the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, on conclusion of trial in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1987, convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part II, of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months, and in this criminal appeal the accused/appellant has taken exception to his conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. 2. Sharad son of PW-2 Vithal, who was hardly 8 years old, died in the incident which occurred on 21-11-86 at 4-00 P.M. Sharad (the deceased) along with PW-1 Sanjay, Rajendra, Dilip and PW-5 Mahadeo had gone to the play ground of the school and at about 4-00 P.M. on 21-12-1986 the accused/appellant Namdeo came to the ground with his bullockcart. The cart was loaded with bamboos. Sharad (the deceased) PW-1 Sanjay and PW-5 Mahadeo and o...

R.N. Kakkar Vs. Hanif Gafoor Naviwala and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR292; 1996CriLJ356

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 391, 400 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the Petitioner for quashing orders dated 1-8-1995 (Exhibit 72) and 2-8-1995 (Exhibit 73) passed by the Special Judge, under the N.D.P.S. Act, for Greater Bombay, in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 1249 of 1988. 2. A narration of the facts in brief would be necessary for the disposal of this petition.The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are being prosecuted for offences punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act and Section 135 of the Customs Act. A seizure of heroin, which took place on 21-1-1988 and 23-1-1988, which is said to have been imported into-India, by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 along with an associate of theirs, who is absconding, is said to have given rise to their prosecution. 3. Following facts are not disputed by the counsel for the parties :- (a) trial in the instant case has been expedited by orders of this Court; and (b) applications on whi...

Nassim Ahmed Jamir Ahmed and ors. Vs. Shipping Corporation of India Lt ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR230; [1996(73)FLR1508]; (1996)ILLJ1200Bom

D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought a declaration that the petitioners and the employees whose names are set out in list Exhibit 'A' to the petition are entitled to be regularised and/or treated as direct employees of the 1st respondent and not the employees of the contractor i.e., the respondent No. 2 in the petition. The petitioners have also sought issue of a writ of mandamus, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to regularise the services of the petitioners and other employees listed in the list Exhibit 'A' to the petition and treat them as regular employees of the 1st respondent from such date as may be fixed by this Honourable Court. The petitioners have further sought issue of a writ of mandamus so as to direct the 1st respondent to absorb the petitioners and other watchmen listed in Exhibit 'A' to the petition as its own employees, with retrospective effect. The petitioners have also sought...

Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1995)53TTJ(Mumbai)538

ORDERT. V. RAJAGOPALA RAO, PRESIDENT :The following question is referred to this Special Bench :'Whether, the amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000 received by draft dt. 5th December, 1989 in consideration of surrendering the statutory tenancy rights and/or possessory rights in property situated at Cadell Road, Prabhadevi, Bombay can be construed to be a casual and non-recurring receipt within the meaning of s. 10(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and as such is exigible to tax under s. 56 of the Act ?'2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of weaving and dyeing cloth. It had entered into two agreements on 26th September, 1963 with M/s Elphinston Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. whereunder it became the tenant and obtained leasehold rights in the property situated at Cadell Road, Prabhadevi, Bombay. Since there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the tenanted property, we can hereinafter call it as tenanted premises for the sake of brevity. The period of tenancy agreed upon under the terms of the a...

Ramesh Kishan More and Etc. Etc. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Othe ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1996Bom74; 1996(2)BomCR27; 1996(1)MhLj175

ORDERMajithia, J.1. This judgment disposes of Writ petition Nos. 1905 of 1995, 1913 of 1995, 2141 of 1995, 3089 of 1995, 3097 of 1995, 3164 of 1995, 3496 of 1995, 3596 of 1995, 3677 of 1995, 3679 of 1995, 3716 of 1995, 3818 of 1995, 3940 of 1995, 3941 of 1995, 4177 of 1995, and 4195 of 1995 as common question of law arises for adjudication therein. 2. Reference to relevant facts has been made from the pleadings in Writ Petition No. 1905 of 1995. The petitioner, Ramesh Kishan More, is working as a Peon in the Collectorate of Satara. He entered service against a seat reserved for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe representing that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe Mahadeo koli. On the basis of the Caste Certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Koregaon, his claim against the reserved seat was recognised. The case of the petitioner was referred to the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribes Claims, Pune, as provided for in Government Resolution dated January 23, 1985,...

Anil Motibaba Barokar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996CriLJ494

1. On 3-3-1993, the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, on conclusion of Sessions Trial No. 198/92, convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(g) I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and by this criminal appeal, the accused/appeal is challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.2. The incident is indeed tragic in which an insane woman aged about 25 to 27 years was gang raped and done to death. According to the prosecution case in between 21-11-1991 at 6 P.M. to 22-11-1991 at 9 A.M., the accused/appellant Anil Motibaba Barokar and three other accused persons namely Yogesh Laxman Gakhare, Hemraj Narayan Hingve and Arun Yadaorao Hingve gang raped one insane lady (name not known) at Khapri Barokar in the field of one Abdul Hafiz and in furtherance of their common intention committed her murder. The oral report was lodged by P. W. 1 Ajabrao on 22-11-1991 at Police Station Kondhali at ...