Mumbai Court January 1996 Judgments
Smt. Asha Anil Deshmukh Vs. Anil Mahadeorao Deshmukh and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2751; II(1996)DMC325; 1996(2)MhLj471
ORDER1. By this criminal application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant challenges the order passed by the trial Court by which the trial Court has allowed the application of the non-applicant No. 1 to adduce the evidence. 2. The undisputed facts are that the present applicant is the wife of non-applicant No. 1 Anil who were married in the year 1984. It seems that there is one son out of this wedlock who is living with the non-applicant. Be that as it may, the relations between the applicant and her husband were strained and ultimately the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Narkhed. A specific defence was raised in this by the husband. Apart from denying that he had meted out any ill-treatment to his wife, he specifically alleged that the present applicant was serving as a teacher in Kranti-Jyoti Savitribai Fuley Kanya Vidyalaya, Narkhed and was getting the salary of R...
Tag this Judgment!Hirdanbai and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2585
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the three appellants who have been convicted for an offence under Section 315 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Appellant-accused No. 1 Hirdanbai is said to be a widow who had, after the death of her husband, became pregnant from appellant-accused No. 2 Yeshorao who is none else but her elder sister's husband. Appellant-accused No. 3-Bairagi is the person who is said to have helped in administration of some drug to Hirdanbai in order to cause her miscarriage, while original accused No. 4 - Natthu Naklu Sakhare was the person who had administered drug to Hirdanbai, which allegedly caused her miscarriage. Original accused No. 4 - Natthu died during the trial, even before the charge was framed against him. 3. The prosecution case was that three witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 - Bharatlal, P.W. 2 - Dawanlal and P.W. 3 - Gajanan @ Gajlal, were returning from their fields and going towards the village Chintatola. It was a night time and they ...
Tag this Judgment!Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1996
Reported in: 1996(84)ELT413(Bom)
ORDERM.B. Shah, C.J.1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are manufacturers of cement, are challenging the Order dated 27th March, 1987 passed ex parte by the Central Excise Authorities denying the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 36/87 dated 1.3.1987. 2. A Writ Petition was filed on 25.6.1987 and pending the Writ Petition, a Show Cause Notice (Exhibit 'L' to the petition), came to be issued by the then Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Division-Chandrapur. The said Writ Petition was consequently amended so as to impugn even the said show cause notice. 3. It is contended that on 25.7.1980, an Industrial Licence was granted to the Petitioners to manufacture Portland Cement and the capacity permitted was to the tune of Rs. 3200 Metric tones per day. It appears that in October, 1983 production commenced. On 15.7.1982, an application for a capacity of additional 3200 Metric Tones per day was made and on 19.9.1986, an Industri...
Tag this Judgment!Pradip Gulabrao Pawar and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR420
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Since these three petitions raise connected questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. A requisition was submitted to the Collector, Jalgaon on 11th December, 1995 requesting to call a meeting of Panchayat Samiti, Bhadgaon for expressing no confidence on its Chairman Pradip Gulabrao Pawar. Collector, Jalgaon issued a notice of special meeting of Panchayat Samiti on 16th December, 1995 and the meeting was to take place on 29th December, 1995 at 12 noon under the Chairmanship of Assistant Collector, Pachora. Collector, Jalgaon had issued these notices to elected members of Panchayat Samiti and not to elected members of Zilla Parishad from Bhadgaon Panchayat Samiti area who by virtue of section 57(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 had automatically became members of Panchayat Samiti, Bhadgaon.3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5886 of 1995 Pradip Gulabrao Pawar, Chairman of Panchayat Sa...
Tag this Judgment!iqbal Mohammed Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2418; 1997(1)MhLj790
ORDER1. By means of this Criminal Revision, the applicant has impugned the order dated 7-11-1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay and Special Judge (Narcotics) For Greater Bombay, rejecting his application for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 8(c) read with Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (1985) hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Acts. 2. A short reference to the factual matrix from which this Criminal Revision arises is necessary for its disposal. On 2-9-1993, on receipt of a reliable information, an abandoned jeep was found in the parking lot in front of 'Jewel of India' Hotel, Worli, Bombay. When searched, it was found to contain 150 kgs mandrax tablets which were seized under a panchanama. An offence under Section 8(c) r/w 21, 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was registered with the Narcotic Cell, CB CID, Bombay, vide C.R. No. 38/1993. Investigation revealed involvement of a number of persons and pur...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2426]
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the group of these 95 writ petitions, the petitioner-Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Nagpur Divisional Board, Nagpur, (for short, 'the Board') seeks to challenge the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Industrial, Court, Nagpur, on 10.2.1995 whereby while disposing of 237 U.L.P.A. complaints, including the complaints of respondents in the aforesaid writ petitions herein (for short, 'the complainants') the Industrial Court directed the Board to give an opportunity and preference to the complainants for re-employment as daily wage clerks/peons as per their seniority if the respondents propose to take in their employment any other daily wage clerks/peons. The Industrial Court in the said order further observed that the Board shall give preference to the complainants as per seniority and qualification for being considered for permanent posts of clerks/peons if the posts are crea...
Tag this Judgment!Pralhad Dyanoba Gajbhiye Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)338; 1996CriLJ2558
M.B. Ghodeswar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6-2-1993 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 918/1991 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and sentencing him imprisonment for life. 2. Shortly stated the facts of the prosecution case are as under : Bhimrao Patil, since deceased, was married to Mainabai daughter of Dnyanoba Gajbhiye (original accused No. 1) in the year 1984. After marriage, they were residing at Mowad. The incident in this case is alleged to have been taken place in the night intervening between 3rd and 4th June, 1991 in Narkhed at the house of original accused No. 1 Dnyanoba, the appellant and other acquitted accused Ramesh are the sons of accused No. 1 Dnyanoba. They were residing jointly in the house at Narkhed. Some one month or so prior to the incident Mainabai w/o Bhimrao was taken to her maternal house at Narkhed and Bhimrao had gone to Raisen ...
Tag this Judgment!Shahadabi M. Isak Vs. Abdul Ajij Abdul Latif and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1812
ORDER1. This writ petition arises out of an application filed by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The learned trial Judge has held that the wife i.e. petitioner-Shahadabi, is entitled for Mehar amount for maintenance during Iddat period. The learned trial Judge allowed the application of the present petitioner-wife and directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 7000/- towards Mehar amount and also pay Rs. 900 towards Iddat period maintenance. The husband was further directed to return the articles which he had received at the time of marriage totalling Rs. 7,360/-. It was, further, directed that the husband shall pay Rs. 5000/- towards future maintenance. The applicant was granted cost of Rs. 300/-. 2. The order passed by the learned trial Judge was challenged in Criminal Revision Application before the learned Sessions Judge at Jalgaon. 3. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to allow Revision filed by the husband and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT620Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though, this day only stay application was listed for hearing, after hearing both the sides, we have taken up the appeal itself for disposal since the matter falls within a short compass, on which a view has already been taken by this Bench in another similar appeal. The appellants received inputs on the basis of endorsed Gate Passes during the period April to June, 1994. There is no dispute that the gate passes were issued on or before 30-3-1994. However, the dealers, who supplied the goods, have made endorsement on the Gate Passes during the period from 15-4-1994 to 27-6-1994. The Department sought to apply the provisions of Notification No. 16/94 (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 and held that the endorsement on the Gate Passes having been made after 30-3-1994, they are not valid documents, authorised by the Board under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. In this view, adjudication proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Collector, wherein he denied the Modvat credit taken on such e...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Ramkrishna and Others Vs. Neelkanth M. Kamble and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR438; 1996CriLJ2119; 1996(2)MhLj328
ORDER1. Heard Mr. G. R. Rege for the petitioners, Mr. A. P. Mundergi with Mr. V. Gurumurthy for Respondent No. 1 and Mrs. J. S. Pawar, APP for Respondent No. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith by consent Counsel for respondents waive service. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arises in the circumstances stated hereinafter : On 26-9-1991 a complaint was filed by Respondent No. 1 against the eight petitioners and others in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC) 2nd Court, Kalyan for offences under Section 418/ 409/166 IPC read with 114 IPC. The same day the JMFC recorded the statement of respondent No. 1 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. However, after perusing the papers and bearing counsel for the Respondent No. 1 he took the view that the question of issuing of process should be deferred till the police has enquired in the matter and consequently, called a police report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The matter again came up before the JMFC., Kalyan on 25-10-1991 by which dat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »