Mumbai Court September 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.
Mrs. Surekha W/O Bibhishan Magar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR318; (1995)97BOMLR448
S.S. Dani, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of convict - Bibhishan Magar, who was tried for an offence of murder under section 302 in 1981 before the Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, and by an order dated 19-8-1981, was held guilty for the alleged offence. The Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, by the said order of conviction and sentence, awarded the extreme penalty of death to the husband of the petitioner. The matter was then taken to this Court in Confirmation Case No. 1-A/1982 with Criminal Appeal No. 37-A/1982. By an order dated 13-8-1982, this Court confirmed the order of conviction under sections 302 and 394 of Indian Penal Code, but set aside the extreme sentence of death, and instead the husband of the petitioner was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.2. The petitioner has approached this Court by the present writ petition for the release of her husband on the ground that he has already undergone sentence of life imprisonment as provided under the rules.3. On behalf of the respondent...
Mayur Chemicals and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1995
Reported in: (1997)(72)LC777Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-appeal No. 17/94-BP dated 11.2.1994.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants who are dealers in various chemicals had stored certain chemicals in the godown of M/s C.M. Mauji Sunderji & Co. Acting on certain information, the officers of the Marine & Preventive Wing of the Customs (Preventive) visited the godown and found 7800 kgs of Pthalic Anhydride, 40 kgs. of G.H. 17, 200 kgs of Rangolite and 100 kgs. of Arsonic Trioxide. It was revealed that it was stored on behalf of the appellants in the godown, for which no entry was made in the godown record as per the instruction of the appellants. Since the goods were of foreign origin, the officers seized the goods for further action under the Customs Act. In the statement recorded by the officers, the appellant Shri Vasant Ajmera, partner of the firm claimed to have purchased 2 of the chemicals viz. Pthalic Anhydride and Rangolite from M/s Nilraj Chemicals, He also gave the address ...
Smt. Hafijabi Suleman Darwajkar Vs. Suleman Mohammad Darwajkar and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom79; 1996(3)BomCR281; (1995)97BOMLR458
ORDER1. The matter relates to claim of maintenance by the petitioner/ applicant under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. the petitioner-appellant has prayed for issue of a writ by way of direction to call for the order dated 30th may, 1988 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Revision Application No. 59 of 1985 and to quash and set aside the same and consequently restore the order dated 1-10-1984 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Ajara in Cri. Misc. Application No. 10/83.2. The petitioner filed an application viz., Cri. Misc. application 10 of 1983 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. It is the case of the petitioner that herself and the first respondent got married about 17 years prior to the filing of the application in village Ajara according to Muslim rites and customs. It is the further case of the petitioner that they lived together happily for about 10 years during which period th...
PravIn Ratilal Dudhara Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Thr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ529Bom
D.R. Dhanuka, J. 1. The petitioner has been in the employment of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay as a Junior Engineer with effect from 1976. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned order dated 6th September 1993 passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner (A) in appeal against order or removal of the petitioner from municipal service whereby the punishment awarded to the petitioner was reduced to the minimum of time scale of the pay as Junior Engineer and Officer order dated 30th September 1993 issued by the Chief Engineer (Roads & S. W. D.) copy whereof is Exhibit 'L' to the petition. It is necessary to set out the relevant facts in detail. 3. Some time in the year 1976, the petitioner was appointed as a junior engineer by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay at the officer of Deputy Chief Engineer, Common Services (Project Monitoring) situate at Palton Road, Bombay. The services of the petitioner wer...
Bhaskar Tanhaji Dhokrat Vs. Mrs. Parwatabai Bhaskar Dhokrat and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR311; I(1996)DMC264
A.D. Mane, J.1. The petitioner, who is the husband, questions the legality and propriety of the order made by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, dismissing the application for cancellation of the order for maintenance passed in favour of the petitioner No.1, (Respondent No. 1).2. The material facts which require mention are these :In Criminal Misc. Application No. 92 of 1977 order of maintenance was passed in favour of the respondent No. 1 wife under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The respondent No. 1 then took out recovery proceedings. In that proceedings the petitioner by his separate application numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 443 of 1986 pleaded that the respondent No. 1 obtained a customary divorce from him on receiving a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and as such she voluntarily surrendered her right to maintenance. He relied on a document called Kararnama written on a stamp paper of Rs. 5/- and requested the learn...
Mulchand Motilal Raka Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR316
A.D. Mane, J.1. The petitioner challenges the legality, propriety and correctness of the order made on 3-5-1991 by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Jamner, dis-charging the respondent No. 2-accused of the offences punishable under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code by invoking provisions of section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code).2. The petitioner filed his complaint with Jamner Police and on basis of which Crime at Cr. No. 81 of 1991 was registered for the aforesaid offences. It was alleged that on 22-3-1991 at about 8.15 p.m. the petitioner with his servant, was coming back to his home after closing the shop. While they were walking on road, one jeep bearing Registration No. MPO/978/5860 dashed them. The jeep was driven by the respondent No. 2. He did not stop the jeep but drove it in fast speed towards petrol pump road. The petitioner got injured. He was treated in the private hospital. On basis of the complaint of the petitioner, ...
Yakub Haji Haroon Khan Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR42; (1996)98BOMLR42
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. Since the petitioners in these writ petitions seek to have the order dated 15th October, 1985 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Bombay in Case No. Appeal/Desk/279 quashed and set aside and as common question of fact and law are involved in these petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. One Anand Chintaman Oze and respondent No. 13 in Writ Petition No. 5437 of 1985 (for short, 'the said respondent') were the owners of lands bearing Gat Nos. 51, 87 and 70/1 situate in village Barwai, Taluka Panvel in Raigad (Kolaba) District (for short, 'the said lands'). The said Anand Chintaman Oze was ancestor of respondents 7 to 12 in Writ Petition No. 5437 of 1985 (for short, 'the said respondents'). A notice dated 24th January, 1969 was issued to the predecessor-in-title of the said respondents and to the said respondent under section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, to the effect that the Forest Department of the 1st resp...
international Airports Authority of India Vs. M/S. Mohinder Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom167; 1996(1)BomCR666; (1995)97BOMLR705
ORDER1. The petitioners in all these petitions are a statutory corporation established under the International Airports Authority of India Act, 1971 and the respondents are a partnership firm engaged inter alia in the business of civil construction. The petitioners had invited tenders for construction of Terminal Building of New International Passenger Terminal Complex (Phase II) at the Bombay Airport Sahar, Bombay. The estimated cost of the work was shown as Rs. 4,09,29,662/- and the completion period was 30 months from the 13th day after the date of the award of the contract. The petitioners received amongst others the tender submitted by the respondents for the said work. The tender submitted by the respondents was accepted for Rs. 7,26,31,325/-and after discussions and negotiations the work was awarded to the respondents and a formal agreement was entered into between the petitioners and the respondents on 22nd January 1982. Clause 25 of the Conditions ofthe contract contained in a...
Avtar Bhogal Singh and anr. Vs. the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Infor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR345
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. For the reasons briefly set out hereinafter Interim Stay of the operation of the Notification dated 17th August, 1995 (Exhibit 'D' to the petition) with liberty to respondent No. 1 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the revisional proceedings pending before it under section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Interim Relief in terms of prayer (c) of the petition.2. By the impugned Notification, the Central Government has directed that the Exhibition of the Hindi Film 'DIL KA DOCTOR' be suspended with immediate effect for a period of two months or until further orders whichever was earlier. It was recited in the impugned Notification that the Central Government had received a complaint alleging that the said film contained visuals degenerating persons working in the Nursing Profession; that it was necessary to enquire into the allegations made in the said complaints under section 6(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952(37 of 1952) and that the Central Gove...
Sou. Shubhada Sharadchandra Divekar Vs. Sharadchandra Raghunath Diveka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1995
Reported in: II(1996)DMC701
G.D. Kamat, J.1. This appeal by the wife challenges the judgment and order dated 5th of August, 1993 made by a Judge of the Family Court, Pune, whereby her Matrimonial Petition A. No. 513of 1991 is dismissed. We will hereinafter refer to parties by their proper names. Wife Shubhada had sued her husband Sharadchandra for a decree of divorce invoking Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, viz. cruelty.2. The petition was contested by Sharadchandra. Upon denying various allegations made viz. mental and physical cruelty, it was set out by him that on 10th of March, 1990 while he was away from home Shubhada deserted the matrimonial house alongwith children and went to her parent's place at Pune itself. He contacted Shubhada but he was told by her that she does not desire any more to live with him thereby indicating to him that the desertion was complete.3. Before institution of the present Matrimonial Petition, a notice was addressed by her through her Advocate on 30th March, 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »