Mumbai Court February 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.
Taher Ali and ors. Vs. Shri Shivaji Education Society and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR333; (1996)98BOMLR37
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. N.W Sambre, Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondents. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, writ petition is finally heard and disposed of at this stage.2. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking to challenge the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati on 4-11-1992 affirming the order passed by the Rent Controller, Amravati on 13-7-1990 whereby the said authorities rejected the application filed by the present petitioners raising objection as regards the tenability of application under Clause 16 of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, the 'Rent Control Order, 1949') filed by the present respondents.3. The undisputed facts are, the petitioners (for short, the 'landlords') are owners of house property situated on Mazul Plot No. 1, Sheet No. 21, Amravat...
Gebbs India (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(64)LC488Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Modvat credit of Rs. 85,419/- has been denied on the ground that the applicant took credit on the basis of gate passes which were endorsed after 31.3.1994, which therefore could have been used for taking credit in terms of Notification No. 16/94.2. The advocate points out that irrespective of whether credit could be taken on the basis of the gate passes, invoices were issued in May 1994, which contained the details required in Notification No. 21/94 and the Trade Notice issued in pursuance of this Notification.3. The D.R. lays stress on the fact that credit has been taken on the basis of the gate passes and Collector (A) has noticed some discrepancies in the details of the gate passes and those in the invoices corresponding to them.4. Prima facie, the invoices issued appear to conform to the requirement of Notification No. 21/94. Taking this into account, I grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay recovery of the amount in question. The appeal to come up in due course....
Madhukar Awadhutroa Taide and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ4025
Acts/Rules/Orders:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 302, 323, 325, 326 and 335;Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 294JUDGEMENT1. This is a Criminal Appeal at the instance of the appellants. The appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 4, i.e. Madhukar, Prakash and Damodhar are convicted for an offence under Section 323 while accused/appellant No. 3 Anil is convicted for an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. All were originally tried for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of one Punjab Kachru Mahajan. 2. The prosecution story shortly stated is as under : That on the fateful day, i.e. on 26-11-1988 at about 8 p.m. at Benoda locality Panjabrao Kachruji Mahajan came to the shop of the accused No. 1 Madhukar and asked for some kerosene. Since Madhukar refused to give him kerosene, there was an altercation between Madhukar and Panjabrao. In, the meantime, the other three accused persons came there, out of whom appellant...
Gorakash S/O Uttamrao Kudake and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR361
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. First petition is by the Institution and the second petition is by the students studying therein. Since relief claimed in both the petitions is inter-related and raise common questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Jagruti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, an educational institution wanted to start Kala Adhyapak Mahavidhyalaya (Art Teachers' Training College) at Patoda in Beed District. The Art Institution was to impart training for Art Teacher's Diploma. An application was submitted on 25th December, 1994 for permission to start the art institution in the year 1995-96.3. As per the rules and the procedure prescribed for recognition, it appears that by the end of February of that year, the authorities should have informed about the acceptance of the prayer for recognition or its refusal to the institution. Though the rules are not worded in clear terms, February of that year surely indicates the year preceding the year for which th...
Chandrakant Vallabhadas Gujarathi Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR249
N. P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Rule. Taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of the parties.2. The petitioner is working as a Deputy Chief Officer, the post which is also known as an Administrative Officer, since 1978. The promotion was confirmed by the State Selection Board some time in the year 1982. It appears that the Municipal Council intends to hold domestic enquiry against petitioner and on 22nd July, 1995, he was suspended by an order, which was signed by the President, Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and along with him, the Chief Officer and the Head of the Establishment Department. But the order specifies that the order is passed as per the order passed by the President of the Municipal Council.3. On 17-7-1995, the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council, Ahmednagar had considered the motion as an item brought in with permission of the Chairman and it passed a resolution granting sanction to immediately suspend the petitioner under section 79(1)(vi), which was later on confirm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›