Mumbai Court February 1996 Judgments

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Girjashankar R. Singh

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1996Bom361; 1996(4)BomCR443; (1996)98BOMLR482; 1996(2)MhLj779

ORDER1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, the petitioners herein, have filed this petition to have the award dated 28th April, 1995 made by the Sole Arbitrator declared as null and void and set aside.2. The petitioners had invited tenders for providing and laying 1,800 mm dia RC (NP 3 Class) Pipe-Sewer along 90' DP Road from MH 63 to MH 69 Dharavi Part IV (for short, 'the said work'). The tender of the respondent, who has been carrying on business as soleproprietor in the firm name and style of 'Adarsh Builders', was accepted and the said work was entrusted to the respondent for being carried out by the respondent on the terms and conditions contained in the contract entered into by and between the petitioners and the respondent. The General Conditions of Contract for civil works of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay were agreed to form part of the terms and conditions of the said Contract along with other documents mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition. The work...

Akbar Khan Vs. Rukhaiya Khatoon and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(1997)DMC263

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This is a Revision Application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein the order passed by the Trial Court granting maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code is sought to be challenged. Following is the prayer:'It is, therefore, humbly prayed on the point of law and facts mentioned above as per records, the order passed granting maintenance under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. to the Respondent (Applicant) be quashed and set aside and till the decision of this case further proceedings in Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 141/95 & 147/95 under Section 125(3), Cr. P.C. pending before J.M.F.C., 3rd Court Chandrapur be stayed by passing a suitable order.'Initially wife Rukaiya Khatoon filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In her application, she pointed out that she was married on 22.5.1988 at Durgapur Colony and cohabited with her husband the presen...

Domnic Misquita and Etc. Vs. the State

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996CriLJ2799

Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. These three Appeals arise out of a Judgment passed by the Asst. Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao dated 30th March, 1995 in Sessions Case No. 6/93, whereby the three accused were convicted under Section 376 of I.P.C. Consequently, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for one year, whereas accused No. 3 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for six months. The accused No. 2 filed Criminal Appeal No. 9/95, accused No. 1 filed Criminal Appeal No. 10/95 and accused No. 3 filed Criminal Appeal No. 12/95 assailing the aforesaid Judgment passed in Sessions Case No. 6/93. Since the appeals emerge from one judgment, we propose to deal with the Appeals by this common judgment. 2. According to the charge, the allegations against the appellants were that during the period from 3rd September, 1991 ...

Vishnu S/O Parmeshwar Yadav and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997CriLJ1724

1. This appeal is at the instance of the three appellants who are convicted by the trial Court for offences under Sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant/accused No. 1 - Vishnu Parameshwar Yadav additionally has been found guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Originally, in all four accused persons came to be tried on the allegation that on or about 15th day of August, 1990, at about 7-O' clock, they kidnapped the prosecutrix, a minor girl about 15 years old from Sudamnagar, Nagpur as also from the lawful guardianship of her parents. It was alleged that this kidnapping was with the intent that she may be compelled to marry any person against will, or may be forced to illicit inter-course. 3. Charge against the accused No. 1 was specific that he committed rape on the said girl on or about 17-8-1990 and, therefore, committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The accused persons as also the pros...

Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha, Bombay Vs. International Airport Authority of I ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR8; (1997)IILLJ1165Bom

G.R. Majithia, J.1. The petitioner, Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha, has sought a mandate against the International Airport Authority of India and tlie Union of India to enforce Notification No. S.O. 779(E) dated 5 December 9, 1976, issued by the Central government prohibiting employment of contract labour on and from March 1, 1977, for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishments in respect 1(of which the appropriate Government under the Contract U. bour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short 'the Regulation Aet')is the Central Government and to reinstate the 71 workmen fully detailed and described in is Ex. 'A' to the petition, as regular employees, with full back wages and continuity of service, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It represents a large number of employees employed in various industries. Respondent No. 1, Internation...

Ramniklalbhai V. Shah and ors. Vs. Maharashtra Slum Areas (improvement ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR644

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Mr. Oka, learned counsel for the petitioners has filed Counsel Note today stating therein that petitioner No. 1 has expired and his name may be deleted from the array of parties. In view of the Counsel Note submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, name of petitioner No. 1 Ramniklalbhai is allowed to be deleted from the array of parties. The learned Counsel for petitioners is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the array of parties forthwith.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. Mr. A.B. Oka, learned Counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contends that the order passed by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Tribunal, Bombay on 22-8-1990 in Appeal No. 6/89, 7/89, 78/89, 79/89, 80/89,81/89 and 83/89 cannot be sustained being in contravention of sub-section (4) of section 4 of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Slum Areas Act 1971)'. Accordin...

Satish B. Kadhe and ors. Vs. Maharashtra Slum Areas (improvement, Clea ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR671

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Mr. Oka, learned Counsel for the petitioners has filed Counsel Note today stating therein that petitioner No. 1 has expired and his name may be deleted from the array of parties. In view of the Counsel Note submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, name of petitioner No. 1 Ramniklalbhai is allowed to be deleted from the array of parties. The learned Counsel for petitioners is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the array of parties forthwith.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. Mr. A.B. Oka, learned Counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contends that the order passed by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Tribunal, Bombay, on 22.8.1990 in Appeal Nos. 6/89, 7/89, 78/89, 79/89, 80/89, 81/89 and 83/89 cannot be sustained being in contravention of Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Slum Areas Act, 1971'). Acco...

Laxmi Vishnu Dye Chem Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT346Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both the sides, considering the nature of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), we feel that the appeal is to be disposed of and hence granting waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amount, we took up the appeal for disposal.2 The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3-1-1996 rejecting the appeal filed by the appellants on the ground that court fee stamp of 50 paise on the order-in-original against which the appeal was filed before him, was not affixed.3. We are surprised with the nature of disposal by the Commissioner (Appeals) because non-affixing of, the Court fee stamp on the copy of the order-inoriginal is a remediable defect and the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have issued a defect memo pointing out this defect. If such a memo had been issued, the defect would have been rectified. In any case, this cannot be a ground for rejecting the appeal without giving them an opportunity to rectify the defect. In the circums...

Rashtriya P.W.D. Employees Union, Nagpur Vs. District Collector, Nagpu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR640; [1996(74)FLR2342]; (1997)IIILLJ804Bom

1. While issuing notice before admission to the respondents, this Court on February 12, 1996 made it clear that the writ petition itself would be heard and decided at the admission stage. All the respondents have been served. 2. Admit. Rule returnable forthwith. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the Collector, Nagpur, had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated December 22, 1995 refusing to make recovery pursuant to the certificate issued to him by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the recovery of back wages as land revenue. According to the petitioner, it is a registered Trade Union of the employees working in the Public Works Department, Irrigation Department, Zilla Parishad, etc. and the Union has been constrained to file this writ petition since the Collector has refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested und...

Dr. Deepak Muchala Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A).2. The assessee in this case is an individual and a doctor (dentist by profession). During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee took loans aggregating to Rs. 94,400, i.e., Rs. 63,000 from Shri Kishore Muchala, Rs. 20,000 from Ms. Umaben Muchala and Rs. 11,400 from Shri Jayesh Goel. The AO initiated proceedings under s. 271-D r/w s. 269-SS of the IT Act, 1961. It was explained before the AO that the assessee took the loans because he booked a flat with Lok Housing & Constructions Ltd. at a cost of Rs. 4,21,000, for which he had to make deposit to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000.Over and above, he made arrangement with M/s Status Enterprises for the purchase of a dental chair, for which he was required to keep ready money. The assessee also had to make payments for various purchases of instruments for the clinic. Since the loans were genuinely taken, it was submitted th...