Mumbai Court June 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.
Chester John D'Cuhna Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR549
S.S. Parkar, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant who has been convicted for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for four months by the Judgment and order dated 20th January, 1982 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay.2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows:---The accused had been charged for committing the murder of one Arjun Ghare the deceased who was the husband of the sister of the accused by name Delfin. The murder is stated to have been committed on 19-10-1980 at about 9.00 p.m. at Dhobighat, Sonar galli, Kurla, Bombay where the deceased and the accused and their close relations were staying. The murder is said to have been committed by stabbing the deceased with a knife which is article No. 1 before the Court. It appears that two days before the incident in question deceased Arjun Ghare had assaulted his wife Delfin who is the sister...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ghanashyam Dattatraya Bhisale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR733
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The State of Maharashtra aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 2-12-1981, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No. 32/1981 acquitting the six respondents for offences punishable under sections 147, I.P.C. and 302 r/w. 149 I.P.C., has come up in appeal before us.At the very outset, we may mention that respondent No. 2 Mohan Dattatraya Bhisale died during the pendency of this appeal and vide order dated 17-1-1994, passed by Division Bench of this Court, comprising of A.C. Agarwal and I.G. Shah, JJ., appeal against him was ordered to stand abated.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under:---The informant Suresh Vasant Kavathkar P.W. 6 and the two other eye witnesses Sushila Vasant Kavathkar P.W. 7 and Malini Vasant Kavathkar P.W. 8 and the deceased Chandrakant Vasant Kavathkar were residents of village Hadi situated within the limits of Malvan Police Station, District Malwan. The respondents are also said to be residents of the same vi...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Johnson and Johnson Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT274Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal by the department is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. KW/329/B-III/92, dated 30-12-1992 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, setting aside the Order-in-Original No. 102/92-93, dated 2-9-1992 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mulund Division, Bombay.2. The Respondents, engaged in manufacture, inter alia, of Band Aid brand adhesive dressing, availed of Modvat credit on 'paper and paper Board' between August, 1990 to December, 1990. The department however felt that the Modvat credit availed of was in excess of Rs. 800/- per M.T. as permissible under Notification No. 257/87, dated 8-12-1987, and such excess credit availed of amounted to Rs. 18,323.23. Show Cause Notice dated 4-3-1991 was therefore issued. The respondents however contended that vide Notification No. 177/86, as it stood amended amongst others, by Notification No. 257/87, Modvat credit was restricted to Rs. 800/- per M.T. only so far as it related to duty under Central Exci...
Gripwell Industries Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(92)ELT477(Bom)
M.B. Shah, C.J. 1. The petitioner have challenged the order dated 5th July, 1989 (Exhibit 'F' to the petition) passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Department, rejecting the petitioners' application for refund of the Customs duty paid on the ground that the application was time-barred. 2. It is the say of the petitioners that without giving any opportunity of hearing and without applying the mind, the petitioners' application for refund was rejected as beyond the period of six months. It is pointed out that the goods were imported in March 1984. As the goods were detained, the petitioners paid the amount of duty and interest under protest without prejudice to its rights and contentions that the duty and interest were not at all payable. For that purpose, the petitioners have produced on record letters dated 21st March, 1985 (Exhibits 'H' and 'I' to the petition). The petitioners have also produced on record the detention notice dated 17th April, 1984 (Exhibit 'G') where...
Choure Anant Babasaheb and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR212
B.N. DESHMUKH, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.2. These writ petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment since they involve, for decision, substantially the same points.3. The petitioners are claiming seats for D.Ed. admission this year on the basis of reservation of 20 per cent for the hilly area. It was argued on behalf of the State Government by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, that the matters are from Beed District and for the purposes of considering the reservation for D.Ed. Course, the Government of Maharashtra in Education Department has passed a resolution dated 30th April, 1992. On the basis of that resolution, there cannot be any reservation in favour of hilly area candidates in the District of Beed. The Counsel for petitioners, however, invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 7th September, 1994 issued by the Planning Department of the State Government in which the District of Beed is included.4. We were confronted with ...
Shri Govind Vithal Velguencar Vs. Shri Vishnum Gopal Velguencar and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR310
R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner/judgment debtor had filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. for setting aside sale by auction during execution proceedings. The suit, out of which the execution proceedings had arisen, was for recovery of money. The suit was decreed to the tune of Rs. 4000/- with 18% interest per annum with effect from 20th May, 1986 and to the tune of Rs. 2350/- with interest at the rate of 22% interest per annum with effect from 20th May, 1986. In order to recover the said amount, the decree holder respondent No. 1 in the proceeding before me had filed an application for execution. In the said execution application respondent No. 1 had sought attachment of house bearing No. 458/C situated at Davorlim, Opposite Laxmi Niwas, Margao in plot under Survey No. 87 of Plot No. 32B. Even though the respondent No. 1 had sought for attachment of immovable property, but the Civil Judge J.D., Margao on account of sheer carelessness on his part ordered attachment of mova...
Adelina Fernandes Vs. the Administrative Tribunal Panaji, Goa Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR344
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner is a tenant and she was ordered to be evicted by the Deputy Collector and Additional Controller, from the premises bearing House No. DMC-9-55, at main road, Nani Daman, which belongs to the respondents Nos. 3 to 11. Respondents Nos. 3 to 11 sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide requirements under section 23 read with section 25 of the Goa, Daman and Diu, Rent Control Act. By its order dated 12-11-1992, the Deputy Collector ordered eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner took the matter in appeal in the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Daman and Diu as Eviction Appeal No. 43/92. The Administrative Tribunal, by its Judgment dated 30-11-1995, also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is in this context that the petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition to challenge the orders of the Deputy Collector and Additional Controller and the Administrative Tribunal.2. The above proceedings were ori...
Shri Narayan Jotiba Shelke Vs. Ramesh Manikrao Bhongade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR311
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. By this writ petition, the judgment passed under Section 428 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the 8th Additional District Judge, Nagpur setting aside the election of respondent No. 3 Narayan Jotiba Shelke is called in question. Election to the post of a Councillor was held on 25.2.1992. The petitioner herein and respondent No. 3 in the original election petition was one of the candidates contesting from Ward No. 28. There were number of other candidates in the field. The election notification was published on 25.1.1992. The polling and counting was held on 25th and 26th February, 1992 and the result was declared on 27.2.1992. It was also published in the gazette. In this election, the present petitioner Narayan Jotiba Shelke was declared to have been elected he having secured the maximum number of votes.2. This election was challenged by way of an election petition for which a provision is made in Section 428 of the Ac...
Mahadevi Mallikarjun BolkavaThe and Others Vs. the Collector of Sholap ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom379
ORDERJhunjhunuwala, J. 1. Though the facts involved are not in dispute, the only question which requires consideration is whether reservation of urban land in the 'Zonal Plan' and not in 'Master Plan' is sufficient for consideration thereof as part of the 'vacant land' as defined in Section 2(q) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act').2. The Original Petitioner owned and possessed four pieces of land, two of which were non-agricultural and the remaining two were agricultural land. The Original Petitioner filed a Statement under Section 6(1) of the Act before the Competent Authority, Sholapur Urban Agglomeration, Sholapur in respect of his holdings. After receipt of the said Statement, the 2nd Respondent prepared a draft Statement under Section 8(3) of the Act and called upon the Original Petitioner to file his objection thereto. The Original Petitioner submitted his objections to the draft Statement and inter alia contended that the draft Statement p...
Ruparel Bros. (Bombay) (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR240; [1997]226ITR172(Bom)
M. B. Shah, C.J. 1. The first petitioner-company agreed to purchase from respondent No. 6-company land bearing survey No. 143 (at present CTS Nos. 1397 & 1398) admeasuring approximately 6,229 square metres situate at village Marol, Andheri Kurla Road, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the said land'), for a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. A part of the said land was already notified by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay as reserved for recreational open space and/or setback for road widening under the Draft Development Plan prepared for Marol Village. For that purpose, an agreement dt. 5th September, 1989 (Exhibit 'A' to the petition), was executed between the first petitioner and the sixth respondent. The said agreement itself provided that parties would be filing Form No. 37-I under the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), with the Appropriate Authority and that if no order for the purchase of the said land by the Central Government is made by the Appropriate Authorit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »