Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(4)BomCR162; [1997]225ITR134(Bom)
ORDER UNDER S. 269UD--Validity.Ratio :The impugned order under section 269UD is set aside having been passed without application of mind by the appropriate authority and arbitrarily in the circumstances of the case.Held :The terrace is not accounted for in the built-up area for calculation of the rate. Once this aspect is admitted by the appropriate authority, it was apparent that the initiation of proceedings under Chapter XX-C was without any basis. In view of the aforesaid clarification, it is clear that the pruchaser is not entitled to the exclusive use of the terrace. There is no question of any balance F. S. I. because the petitioner has purchased only a flat and not a bunglow. In the impugned order, the Appropriate Authority has straight way stated that looking to all the apsects of the case, it was of the view that the fair market value of the subject property is Rs. 46 lakhs on the date of the agreement, giving a market rate of Rs. 3,415.00 per square foot as against the discl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ1072Bom
JhunjhunuWala, J.1. The petitioners who were employed with Kirlakar Pneumatic Company Ltd., the 3rd Respondent hercin, seek declaration that the closure of 3rd respondent Company's undertaking at Nasik without complying with the provisions of Sec. 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short,'the said Act') is illegal. The petitioners also seek appropriate writ, order or directions directing the State of Maharashtra to take action against the said company under the provisions of Section 25O and 25R of the said Act. 2. At the material time, the 1 st petitioner was employed as Supervisor, the petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 as Junior Assistants and the 6th petitioner as senior assistant with the 3rd respondent. One Kirloskar Tractors Ltd., a company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 had established a factory for manufacture of tractors at Nasik within the State of Maharashtra. The said Kirloskar Tractors Ltd. had applied to this Court by company...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)99BOMLR751
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The appellant Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay has preferred this appeal dissatisfied with the order dated 10.3.1989 passed by Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay. By the said order, the Court below on the prayer made by the respondent herein (for short original plaintiff) for withdrawn of the suit dismissed the suit for non-prosecution but while dismissed the suit passed certain order.2. Smt. Sarvari Begum, the original plaintiff, filed the suit against the present appellant the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (for short the original defendant) praying therein that the Notice dated 5.7.1986 bearing reference No. 165/S/SR issued under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 he declared illegal, bad in law, void, inoperative, without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiff. Along with the prayer for declaration, the original plaintiff also prayed that the original defendant be restrained by an order of injunction from entering upon, de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(4)BomCR604; 1997BomCR(Cri)34
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. The petitioner, who is a minor girl, 9 years old, represented by her father has challenged the legality and validity of a circular dated 16th August, 1995 issued by the then District & Sessions Judge, Solapur. She has also challenged the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharpur, passed on 21st December, 1995 refusing to accept the charge-sheet filed by the police on the basis of the aforesaid circular and on the ground that the muddemal property is not submitted alongwith the charge-sheet. She has further prayed for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharpur, on 28th December, 1995 directing that the accused (respondent No. 3) be released on bail in Criminal Misc. Application No. 464 of 1995.2. By order dated 11th March, 1996, rule was granted and was made peremptorily returnable on 27th March, 1996. The State was directed to file affidavit explaining the circumstances under which th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)(91)ELT585Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This Appeal filed by the Department is against "the Order-in-Appeal No. GS/565-II/92, dated 25-8-1992 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay setting aside the Order-in-Original No. V(B-13)(30) 8/91, dated 21-2-1992 holding that the price declared by the Respondents were approved by adding Rs. 2/- so far as polystyrene clear grade are concerned and adding Rs. 3/- in relation to the Polystyron colour grade. The Respondents filed price list No. 6/91 effective from 6-11-1991. The issue prices are according to the department, less than the price which could be worked out on the cost structure basis. Though the prices were declared at Rs. 35/- and Rs. 38/- respectively but according to the department the prices ought to have been Rs. 37/- and Rs. 40/- respectively per kg. The Respondents came forward with the plea that as the cost of the imported materials was cheaper, they have reduced the price accordingly to stand in the market. The explanation was not accepted and appro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997BomCR(Cri)200; 1996CriLJ4180
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Vide judgment and order dated 10th July 1981 passed by the Sessions Judge Raigad, in Sessions case Nos. 4 of 1981 and 44 of 1981 the Appellants, were convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter : (i) Under Section 302 read with 149, IPC, to life imprisonment : (ii) Under Section 147, IPC to 3 years R.I. : and (iii) Under Section 148, IPC, but awarding no separate sentence on that count. Hence this appeal. 2. Along with the Appellants 12 other person viz. 1) Savalaram Dama Mhatre, 2) Hari Bama Mhatre, 3) Ganpat Joma Mhatre, 4) Mahadeo Balaram Mhatre, 5) Joma Padu Gharat, 6) Padaji Chintu Thakur, 7) Tukaram Dama Mhatre, 8) Tukaram Dama Mhatre, 9)Hari Tukaram Mhatre, 10) Kashinath Tukaram Mhatre, 11) Namdeo Ragho Mhatre, and 12) Ramakant Balkrishna Gharat, were also tried but they have been acquitted by the impugned judgment. 3. The prosecution case in brief as emerging from the recitals contained in the FIR and the statements of the there eye-witnesses r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1996Bom380; 1996(4)BomCR476; II(1996)DMC564; 1996(2)MhLj639
ORDERM. L. Dudhat, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 16-4-1994 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Pune in P. A. No. 641 of 1992, the appellant-husband has filed this first appeal. Few facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under :2. The appellant who is a school teacher got married with the respondent, who was also a school teacher, on 16th May, 1981 as per the rites and ceremonies of Hindu religion. After the marriage, there were difference of opinion, due to which the relations between the parties were strained and, therefore, it is the case of the appellant that the respondent had deserted him. It was also the case of the appellant that he suffered mental cruelty at the behest of the respondent, due to which he became entitled to get divorce under S. 13(1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant, therefore, filed appeal for divorce on 20th December, 1990 against the respondent-wife for divorce, more particularly...
Tag this Judgment!