Mumbai Court March 1996 Judgments

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Sopan Yashwant Mohite and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR717; [1996(74)FLR2090]; (1996)IILLJ1156Bom; 1996(1)MhLj1009

1. The petitioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, has challenged order passed in Application (BIR) 276 of 1986 by 8th Labour Court, Bombay, dated December 31. 1992, and order passed in Appeal (IC) No. 13 of 1992, and Appeal (IC) No.16 of 1992 by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, dated June 23, 1993, in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The lst respondent (hereinafter 'the respondent') was employed as Bus Conductor in the BEST Undertaking. He was charge-sheeted under Clauses 20(b) and 20(d) of the certified Standing Orders. A domestic enquiry was held. The charge was found to have been proved and punishment of dismissal from service as imposed by the disciplinary authority. 3. The respondent challenged the order in an application under Section 79 read with Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short 'the Act') before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, keeping in view the rival contentions of the parties, f...

Sandu Keshavsingh Shinde and ors. Vs. Ramsingh Mahasingh Shinde and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR682

A.D. Mane, J.1. This criminal writ petition arises out of the proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Executive Magistrate, Sillod in exercise of his power conferred on him by sub-section (1) of section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code directed that the disputed property C.T.S. No. 63 of village Satara (Bk.) be taken possession of under the supervision of the Government until proceedings are disposed of. That order passed by the Executive Magistrate was challenged by the respondent in revision and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the order dated 9-9-1991 set aside the order of Executive Magistrate and directed party No. 1 to continue in possession over the subject matter of dispute.2. The question arises whether the revisional Court was justified in interfering with the order passed by the Executive Magistrate under sub-section (1) of section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. In order to appreciate this question it may be stated that the object of ...

Sarangdhar Namdeo Masane and anr. Vs. the Civil Judge (Junior Division ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR540; (1996)98BOMLR480

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the parties.2. The petitioners herein, who are the elected candidates, challenge the order passed by the trial Court acting as an election tribunal under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, staying the elections of the Up-Sarpanch concerning the Gram Panchayat, Wadegaon. It is an admitted position that the petitioners are declared elected candidates and an election petition came to be filed challenging their elections by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Sanjeev Ramrao Chatol and Smt. Wandana w/o Arun Kakad. Initially, an injunction was also sought restraining the present petitioners from voting in the elections to the posts of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch, which was rejected by the trial Court. However, it seems that thereafter the trial Court has chosen to issue an ad interim ex parte injunction to that effect. In the wake of established canons of law, such grant of injunction is highly objectionable. That apart, as if this was not suf...

Hede Navigation Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR669; 1996(2)MhLJ7

S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to have the Award dated 26th September 1989 filed in this Court set aside.The petitioner is a Company incorporated and registered under the provisions of The Companies Act, 1956. At all material times, the petitioner carried on business as ship owners and carriers of goods by Sea. The respondent is the Union of India.2. By a Charterparty dated 15th April, 1985 the petitioner let its vessel 'M.V. SHANTA SHIBANI' to the respondent for carriage of charge of about 26,000 m.t. of Muriate of Potash from Aqaba to Kandla. On or about 8th November, 1985 the said vessel arrived at Kandla and was berthed on 17th December, 1985. The said vessel completed discharge at Kandla on 10th January, 1986. One Indian Potash Ltd. was receiver of the said cargo and as such, the said cargo was discharged by the said Indian Potash Ltd. and paid for the discharge. In respect of the said Charterparty and carriage of the said cargo, the petitioner had...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Ambica Scale Mfg. Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)LC96Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Both the appeals are from the revenue challenging the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad bearing No. 13/Addl.Collr./1984, dated 12-11-1984 dropping all the allegations contained in the Show Cause Notice dated 23-9-1982 issued against the respondents. Both the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of platform type weighing bridges classifiable under T.I. 45 of Central Excise Tariff, as it stood then. On 25-3-1982, the Central Excise Officers arranged simultaneous check of both the respondents' factory units. In the factory unit of Shri Ambica Scale Manufacturing Works (hereinafter referred to as 'Ambica'), they found two weighing bridges lying in stock. A statement of the partner of Ambica, Shri Rajubhai Manharlal Thakore was recorded, who revealed that this factory is manufacturing weigh bridges since 20 years and their factory is run by a partnership consisting of S/Shri Maganlal Himatlal Thakore, Manharlal Maganlal Thakore and Narendrakumar Maganl...

Swajan Pariwar Trust Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Dy.CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1990-91.2. The assessee filed the return of income without the audit report in Form No. 10B. Since the return was to be accompanied by the audit report in Form No. 10B, the Assessing Officer (AO) while processing the case under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act denied the benefits of exemption under s. 11 of the Act to the assessee-trust. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee filed an application for rectification under s. 154 of the Act and submitted that the exemption should be allowed as Form No. 10B was submitted along with the application. The AO, however, rejected the explanation as the statutory requirement of filing Form No. 10B of the Act was not complied with by the assessee at the time of filing the return.3. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Dy. CIT(A) and it was submitted that the AO was not justified in rejecting the application under s....

Ramesh Nana Ghorpade Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR572; 1996CriLJ2185; 1997(1)MhLj16

Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Vide the judgment and order dated 21st July, 1992, passed in Sessions Case No. 318 of 1991, the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated hereinafter :- (i) Under Section 302, I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment; and (ii) Under Section 436, I.P.C. to undergo two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo six months R.I. The sentences of the appellant were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief, as emerging from the recitals contained in the testimony of the informant and three other eye-witnesses of the incident, runs as follows :- The deceased Vithu was the maternal uncle of the informant Keshav Kanha Kadam. P.W. 6. On 30th December, 1990, at about 4.00 p.m. while the deceased was busy preparing baskets from bamboo sticks, the appellant Ramesh Nana Ghorpade, came and told him to send his daughter to him for one night. Understandingly, the deceased could not...

Sanjay Alias Ravindra N. Gaikwad and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR579; 1996CriLJ2172

Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants directed against the judgment dated 19-1-1990 in Sessions Case No. 230/1989 on the File of the VII Assistant Sessions Judge, Thane.Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP for the State-respondent. 2. Both the appellants were prosecuted by the police for an offence under Section 393, r/w 34 and 397 r/w 393, I.P.C.The prosecution case in brief is that on 11-10-1988, complainant Gulzar Ahmed Rais PW 1 came from Bhivandi to Kalyan and got down at bus stand at about 5.45 p.m. He went near of public urinal to answer call of nature. When he came out of the public urinal, the prosecution case is that both the accused came there and threatened the complainant. It is alleged further that one of the accused caught hold of the complainant's shirt and pointing out a knife and demanding the complainant to part with an amount and property. The accused No. 1 was stated to be the person who was holding collar of complainan...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhuvanendra Mallapa Akiwate

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR590; 1997CriLJ177

Sahai, J.1. The State of Maharashtra aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24-1-1986 passed by the JMFC, Vadgaon, District Kolhapur, in Regular Criminal Case No. 58/1984 acquitting the respondent under Section 408, I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under : the informant Manikchand Bhishikar P.W. 1 was the Director and Secretary of the Bahubali Vidyapeeth and Bahubali Bharamcharayashram Kumbhoj. Taluka Hatkanangale. The respondent at the time of incident, in fact since 8 years prior to it was working as clerk in the aforesaid institution. It is also said that the respondent was working as clerk in Bharat Varashiya Digambar Jain Thirth Kshetra Committee, Head Office at Bombay with branch office at Kumbhoj from two years prior to the incident. It is further said that the respondent used to collect amount from the donors of the institution. The case for the prosecution is that in between the period 27-7-1982 to 7-2-1983, the respondent...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahipal Singh Satyanarayan Singh

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR583; 1996CriLJ2485

Sahai, J.1. Since both these appeals arise out of same set of facts, we propose disposing them of by a common judgment. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 316/1987 has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of the respondent under sections 392/397 IPC and section 37(1)(a) r/w 135 of Bombay Police Act recorded vide the Judgment and order dated 19-12-1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions case No. 258 of 1984. By that very Judgment, the trial Judge had convicted and sentenced the respondent in the manner stated hereinafter :- (i) Under section 392 r/w 34 IPC to 3 months and 17 days R.I.; and (ii) Under section 332 IPC r/w 34 IPC to R.I. for 3 months and 17 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. R.I. for 6 months. The substantive sentences of the respondent were directed to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 317/1987 has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent under sections 392...