Mumbai Court April 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.
Shri Arif Dawood Memon @ Arif Toofan Vs. Shri Satish Sahney, Commissio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR5; 1997BomCR(Cri)67
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention dated 6th May, 1995. We have heard Shri Nitin Sarpotdar for the petitioner, Shri S.R. Borulkar, A.P.P. for the State and Shri H.V. Mehta for Union of India.2. The Commissioner of Police, Bombay passed the impugned order of detention detaining the petitioner by an order passed under section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980.Grounds of detention are at Exhibit C to the petition. We will refer to the relevant grounds at the appropriate stage.3. Being aggrieved by the detention order, the detenue has approached this Court for quashing the same.4. At the time of arguments the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised the following three points in support of the petition.i) delay in passing the order of detention;ii) translation of all the grounds of detention and documents was not furnished in Urdu; andiii) delay in the disposal of the representation by the State Go...
Smt. Lilavati Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs. Shri Satish Sahney, Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR636; 1997BomCR(Cri)51
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 7th August, 1995. Heard Mr. Shirish Gupte, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Patil, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. H.V. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the Union of India.2. Few facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows:---The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Vasant Ramchandra Gaikwad. The Commissioner of Police, Bombay passed the impugned order dated 7th August, 1995 under section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 for detaining the detenu to prevent him from doing prejudicial activities as mentioned in the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention are annexed to the petition as per annexure 'B'.Being aggrieved by the order of detention, the mother of the detenu has come up with the present petition. The grounds of detention are not necessary since the petition has been argued o...
Shrawan Nathu Kannuar Vs. Smt. Anjunanabai Shrawan Kannuar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ491; II(1996)DMC663
ORDER1. This case has chequerred history. The Respondent is the wife of the petitioner. She made an application dated 15-7-1977 being Application No. 56 of 1977 in the Malegaon Court for maintenance. The petitioner resisted that application and denied the allegations of neglect and maintenance of his wife. He also made an allegation that his wife had adultery relations with one Mahadeo Pira. That application was came to be allowed by the lower Court by awarding an amount of Rs. 50/- p.m. to the wife. However, the learned Magistrate at the first instance dismissed the application for maintenance on the ground that the petitioner did not prove that respondent married second wife or kept a mistress. The wife approached the Revisional Court by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 179 of 1986. By order dated 14-11-1986 the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik set aside the order of the Magistrate and granted a maintenance of Rs. 50/- per month to the wife. This order of revisional authority...
Kamgar Sabha Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2486]; (1998)IIILLJ748Bom
1. The petitioner is registered Trade Union. Though three is a dispute raised whether all the canteen employees are its members or not, the petitioners has filed two affidavits of canteen employees showing that they are its members. The respondent No. 2 is a company. It runs a canteen for its employee at its factory place situated at Santa Monica Works, Corlim. It employs more than 250 workers in the said factory. It is engaged in manufacture of various drugs and medicines. The said canteen is run through a Contractor, that is, respondent No. 3 as respondent No. 2 obliged by Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent No. 2 is registered under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and respondent No. 3 has obtained a license under section 12 of the said Act. 2. The petitioner has pressed the following prayers only :- '(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature...
Pandharinath Bhikaji Vinde and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR10; 1997BomCR(Cri)72
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Vide Judgment and order dated 2-3-1994, passed in Sessions Case No. 199 of 1993, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinafter:---i. Pandharinath Bhikaji Vinde:--- a. Under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo six months R.I. b. Under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act but, awarding no separate sentence; andii. Narendra @ Nalad Kashinath Marde:--- a. Under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo six months R.I; b. Under section 506 I.P.C. but, awarding no separate sentence; c. Under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act but, awarding no separate sentence. Hence, this appeal.2. The prosecution case in brief is that Kalpana P.W. 1 is the wife of the deceased Ashok Motiram Bari. At the time of the incident, she along with her husband Ashok and her children was residing...
Rajkumarsingh S/O Dr. K.B. Singh Vs. the Amravati University, Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR628
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. B.P. Jaiswal, Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. J.T. Gilda, Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent No. 2. By consent, heard finally at this stage.2. Petitioner Rajkumarsingh, after passing out his XIIth standard examination conducted by the U.P. State Secondary Board in Summer 1991, applied for admission to the M.B.B.S. course in Dr. Panjabrao @ Bhausaheb Deshmukh Memorial Medical College, Amravati (respondent No. 2) in the Academic Session 1991-92. The petitioner was admitted in the respondent No. 2 College. The first M.B.B.S. examination of the petitioner was in due in winter 1992. The petitioner did not complete requisite attendance and he was detained and could not appear in the examinations which were held in winter 1992. For the first year examination in Summer 1993, the petitioner had submitted his examination form, but the respondent No. 2 College communicated to the petitioner that th...
Lakhanpal National Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT87Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the appeal as well as the stay petition are proposed to be disposed of by this common order, in view of the fact that the grounds canvased by both the sides fall within a short compas, which are adequate for disposal of the appeal itself.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of dry battery cells.They have declared 'cadmium' as a raw material/component used in the manufacture of dry battery cell and claimed exemption in respect of duty paid on cadmium under Notification No. 201/79. However, the department alleged that cadmium is mixed with zinc, from which zinc callots are made and hence only zinc callots are the final product.However, these zinc callots are captively consumed for conversion into cans for dry battery cells. The Assistant Collector denied the exemption and passed the order-in-original, against which the appellants filed an appeal, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal.3. After hearing both the s...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Nirmal Electric Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT115Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. D/2044/BI-498/83, dated 3-11-1983, of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.2. A demand for Rs. 42,490.35 was raised against the respondents, as duty not paid in relation to the items falling under Tariff Item 68, and Rs. 2,914.80 (basic) + Rs. 145.74 (special) in relation to the items falling under Tariff Item 61 in addition to raising demand for Rs. 617.20 in relation to the goods valued at Rs. 15,448/- falling within Tariff Item 68, which were seized. The demands were raised on the ground that the respondents had, during the period on 1-4-1979 to 31-3-1980, exceeded the exemption limit of Rs. 5 Lakhs and Rs. 15 Lakhs respectively for the items under Tariff Item 61 and 68, and hence were not eligible to exemption vide Notification No. 71/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978 and Notification No. 89/79-C.E., dated 1-3-1979. The respondents however contended that out of their total clearances of Rs. 29,78,772/- ...
Maharashtra Rajya Pareet (Dhobi) Sewa Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom67; 1996(4)BomCR626; 1996(2)MhLj186
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Lambat , the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that by a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents be directed to include the community 'Dhobi' in the list of scheduled castes. It is further prayed by the petitioner that it be held and declared that denial of inclusion of the community Dhobi in the list of Scheduled Castes amounts to a fraud on the Constitution and thus, ultra-vires the Constitution. 3. At the outset, it may be stated that the Court by declaration cannot exclude or include the caste in the Constitution Scheduled Caste Order, 1950 and SC and ST Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 nor it is open to the Court to issue directions for addition or substitution of a particular caste in the Constitution Scheduled Castes Order, 1950 or the SC and ST Order (Amendment) Act, 1976. It is not the domain of the Court to examine and hold that a particular caste shoul...
The Central Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Vs. Bank of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom386
1. In the suit to recover the sum of Rs. 1,86,97,277.00 with interest on the principal sum of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- and the costs, the present Summons for Judgment has been taken out on behalf of the Plaintiffs.2. The facts leading to institution of this suit by the Plaintiff Society amply demonstrate the manner and mode in which the bank, supposed to be a repository of faith and trust and custodian of money deposited with it even by ordinary citizens, has indulged in fraud and malpractices with intend to mis-appropriate hard earned money of Central Railway Employees deposited through Plaintiffs' Society on 'Short Term Deposit' basis. The facts of the case also demonstrate the pre-planned and pre-determined manner in which the bank Officials siphoned off the money remitted by the Plaintiffs' Society by 'Crossed-cheques' drawn in favour of the Defendants' Bank for investment as 'Short Term Deposit'.3. The plaintiffs are a Society registered under The Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 and The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »