Mumbai Court October 1996 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.
Abdul Gafar Rasoolbhai Memon Vs. D.K. JaIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)ALT(Cri)16; 1997BomCR(Cri)350
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who is the brother of the detenue seeks to challenge the detention order dated 26th August, 1996 passed by respondent No. 1, in exercise of the powers vested in him by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974), read with Government Order, Home Department (Special) No. SPL. 3(A) /PSA 1092/4 dated 4th August 1992 detaining the detenue under the said Act.2. It may be stated that the original petitioner was one Rasoolbhai Amibhai Memon, the father of the detenu, but as during the pendency of this petition he expired, by way of amendment Abdul Gafar Rasoolbhai Memon has been impleaded as petitioner, in this petition.3. In our view, since this petition can be disposed off on a purely legal ground no reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the grounds of detention...
Mrs. Shama Parvesh Chandra Batra and anr. Vs. Mrs. Hajabai C. Ranavat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR482
V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This is a classic sample of litigation arisen from execution proceeding under Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code. In this matter, ex-parte decree passed by the City Civil Court. Bombay in Summary Suit No. 1853/65 where one Shri Chunilal Hajarimal Ranavat obtained a money decree against one Shri Hassan Parisian Hoosein. As the said judgment-debtor Hassan Parisian Hoosein had failed to pay the decretal amount, the property known as 'Duke of York Stores and Restaurant ' situated at 150, Colaba Chambers, Bombay proclaimed to be sold in public auction under the Court's order. The public auction sale of attached property was held on 4-4-1966. The respondents Nos. 9 and 10 being the highest bidders have purchased the said property for Rs. 78,000/-. A sale certification was issued in favour of respondents Nos. 9 and 10 by the City Civil Court, Bombay on 23-9-1968. A Chamber Summons taken out by the judgment-debtor Shri Hassan Parisian Hoosein for setting aside the auction sa...
Kalandarali Akbarali Kazi Vs. Shaikh Gulam Ibrahim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR472
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. The landlord filed Civil Suit No. 380 of 1977 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nasik, against his tenant for possession of the suit premises on the ground that the landlord needed the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for personal use and that the tenant has been in arrears of rent for more than six months and has not paid, despite notice of demand. The defendant filed written statement and denied that he is a defaulter. He contended that the rent is excessive. He further contended that he had deposited rent of Rs. 80/- with the Municipality towards arrears of house tax and, thereafter, he has also deposited Rs. 340/- with the Municipality in pursuance to the notice by the Municipality. 2. The learned trial Judge held that though the defendant was paying Rs. 35/- as rent, the standard rent is Rs. 25/- per month without electricity. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff has not proved that the defendant is a defaulter. The learned Judge held t...
The State of Maharashtra and Other Vs. Ganesh S/O Raju Rajput and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)378
ORDERM.B. Ghodeswar, J.1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal by his judgment and order dated 21-12-1995 in Sessions Trial No. 240/93 has convicted accused No. 1 Ganesh Raju Rajput and accused No.2 Kumar N. Parraman Mondar for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and had sentenced accused No. 1 Ganesh to death and accused No. 2 Kumar to suffer imprisonment for life. The accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence under section 4(2)(b) punishable under section 16 and accused No. 2 for the offence under section 4(2)(b) punishable under section 20 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and sentenced to suffer 3 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further three months simple imprisonment. The accused No. 1 Ganesh is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer three months. R.I. The learned trial Judge has sent this reference ...
Shri Rajendra Baburao Gholap, Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR600; [1997(75)FLR331]
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Labour Court, Pune, dated 28th July, 1989made in Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 30 of 1988 and the order of the Industrial Court dated 7th June, 1990 made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 37 of 1989, both under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The respondent filed a complaint, Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 30 of 1988, before the Third Labour Court, Pune, alleging inter alia therein that the present petitioners had committed an offence under section 48 of the Act and praying that they be punished in accordance with law. It appears that though a statement of verification was recorded on 27th September, 1988, the record does not show that it was done after administering oath to the respondent complainant, nor does it show that it was m...
Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and Another Vs. Bhimrao Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ1141; (1996)98BOMLR642; (1997)IILLJ1135Bom; 1997(2)MhLj365
1. The appellants in the instant first appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, questioned the findings recorded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Yavatmal, in Workmen's Compensation Case No.6 of 1990 decided on February 11, 1992. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent Bhimrao Manikrao Unhale at the relevant time i.e. on the date of accident precisely on March 1, 1990, was working a Driver, driving Road-roller. He was getting fixed salary of Rs 1, 3801per month as Driver. At the relevant time, the respondent Bhimrao was of about 41 to 42 years of age. On March 1, 1990, while on duty, he came under the Road roller and his left arm was crushed. Immediately, he was removed to the hospital. His left arm above the elbow was amputated. Dr. Vishnu (P.W.2) - the Medical Officer who examined the respondent, deposed that his left hand was crushed and the same was amputated. Exh. 26 is die Medical Certificate issued by the doctor. 3. According to doct...
Kisan Laxman Mane Vs. Director of Animal Husbandry Pune and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR649]; (1997)IILLJ571Bom
ORDER1. This writ petition under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India impugns an order of the Industrial Court, Pune, dated September 3, 1990, made under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') 2. The petitioner was working as a mazdoor in the employment of the Second Respondent since 1977. He was initially working on daily wages and subsequently was made permanent as Mazdoor from January 5, 1983. It is the case of the petitioner that he possesses a driving licence for driving heavy vehicles and tractors and, therefore, from February 1, 1982 he was called upon to do work as a Tractor Driver continuously, but, despite repeated requests, he was being paid wages only of a mazdoor. From February 21, 1986, the petitioner was reverted to the post of mazdoor after which he was not given the work of Tractor Driver. 3. The Petitioner moved the Industrial Court by way ...
Piragonda Shidgonda Patil and ors. Vs. Ichalkaranji Urban Co-op. Bank ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR678]; (1997)IILLJ533Bom
1. All these writ petitions under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugn the orders of the Industrial Court made on different dates in complaints under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') 2. The Petitioners in all these petitions are ex-employees of the First Respondent Bank who have been superannuated from Service upon completing the age of 55 years. The petitioners filed complaints under the Act before the Industrial Court in which they alleged that the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the Establishment of the First Respondent provided that , 'Every employee shall be retired from service on attaining the age of 55 years', that they were entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years by reason of a provision contained in the Model Standing Orders issued under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, applicable to the First Respondent ...
Pandurang Limbaji Lande Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)762
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The judgment and order dated 31st March 1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 283 of 1993 is challenged in this appeal by the appellant (original accused). By the aforesaid judgment, accused/appellant was convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. According to the prosecution, deceased Sukhdeo Lande and accused Pandurang Lande are cousins. There was a dispute with regard to the fields which they occupied. According to the prosecution, the said dispute was settled, but after that again dispute arose on the allegation that the accused had changed boundary of their fields and then deceased restored the boundary. On this issue, a quarrel ensued between them. On 24th August 1993 at about 9.00 a.m. the deceased, after giving water to his crops from the well in the field of Ganpati Patkar, put off the electric motor there and he was st...
Ramesh Tulsidas Bhatia Vs. the Principal Secretary and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR662
N.D. Vyas, J.1. By the present writ petition which is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity and legality of the order dated 28th April 1989 passed by the 1st respondent cancelling the Conveyance Deed dated 20th May 1985 issued in favour of the petitioner.2. The short question which requires consideration in the present petition is whether the State can, after conveying the plot of land in favour of a person, cancel the same by exercising power under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act')3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :The petitioner and his family are the victims of partition. They had to flee the area now known as Pakistan and were faced with the problem of settling down. Many displaced persons were sent to this State for rehabilitation. There were number of transit camps near Kalyan which were used previously...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »