Mumbai Court July 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.
Deepesh Mahesh Zaveri Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ4112
A.V. Savant, J.1. The main question which arises for consideration in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is how to calculate the period of three months contemplated by clause (4) of Article 22 of the Constitution which does not permit preventive detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless the Advisory Board has reported before expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention. This is a petition by Deepesh Mahesh Zaveri, son of the detenu Mahesh Kantilal Zaveri, challenging the Order dated 5th October, 1995 issued by the second respondent viz. Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, in exercise of his powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, COFEPOSA Act). Under the said order, Mahesh Kantilal Zaveri has been detained ...
Subhash Dhondiba Pandit Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)175; 1996CriLJ4194
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11th August 1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 81 of 1982 convicting and sentencing him to undergo seven years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo six months' RI under S. 304, Part II, IPC has come up in appeal before us. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story runs as follows :- The appellant and the deceased Laxman Kadam are neighbours. PW 1 Pandurang Laxman Kadam is the son of the deceased and PW 2 Kailas is the grandson of the deceased. Two days prior to the incident there was a quarrel between the wives of the appellant and Pandurang Kadam PW 1. The cause of the quarrel was, Thummi the daughter of the appellant had carried some cow dung from the court-yard of Pandurang Kadam. It is said that on account of this quarrel the appellant came the same night and told Pandurang's father Laxman Kadam that he would see him. On the date of the incident i.e. 6t...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Metalman Pine Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT382Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Invoking the provisions of Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 the Revenue has filed the present set of applications, registered as appeals, vide Sub-section (4) of the said section, challenging the Order-in-Original No. CAO/No. 127/94-CAC, dated 19-7-1994 of the Collector of Customs-II at Bombay, dropping the proceedings initiated against the present Respondents, pursuant to the Show Cause Notice No.S/1018/AJ/93SHB, dated 5-7-1993, alleging undervaluation of the goods imported by respondent Metalman Pipes Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and its liability to confiscation vide Section 111(m) of the Act, and also under Section 111(d) of the Act, on the ground that on appropriate valuation, the goods imported would exceed the value limit specified under the import licences issued to the importers and also alleging them to have rendered liable to penalty, by further alleging that the other Respondents had abetted in causing the under valuation and consequent unauthorised import.2.1 Respond...
Devkubai N. Mankar and Others Vs. Rajesh Builders and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom142
ORDERDr. SARAF, J.1. This is an appeal of the successors of original defendant No.2 from the order of the learned single Judge dated 3rd November, 1995 made in Notice of Motion No. 2284 of 1989 in Suit No. 2421 of 1983 refusing to set aside the interim order of injunction passed on 19-6-1984 in Notice of Motion No. 1953 of 1983 against their predecessor (Original defendant No.2 since deceased).2. The relevant fact of the case, briefly stated, are as follows. The appellants (hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, referred to as 'the heirs of Warli') are the heirs and legal representatives of one Madhya Pradesh Warli who was defendant No.2 in the suit filed by M./s Rajesh Builders, respondent No. 1 herein. On or about 5th July, 1973, Mr. Warli, the predecessor of the appellants had executed a power of attorney in favour of one Mahendra Damodar Patil, original defendant No.1 (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives who are respondents in this appeal), in respect of ...
Gurudas G. Priolkar Vs. Union Bank of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR76]; (1999)IIILLJ1647Bom
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner was working as an employee under the respondent-bank. While he was serving in the bank, certain allegations of misconduct had been levelled against the petitioner and, therefore, departmental inquiry was conducted. The inquiry was conducted on June 23, 1975, and the inquiry officer gave his findings on December 12, 1975, holding that the petitioner was guilty of all the charges levelled against him. Respondent No. 1, therefore, proposed to dismiss the petitioner from the service. After affording opportunity of personal hearing the superior authority had passed an order of dismissal dated January 24, 1976. This was subsequently confirmed by the higher authorities of the bank. This order of dismissal of the petitioner became the subject-matter of a dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, which was referred to it by way of Reference No. CGIT-9 of 1987. The dispute that had been referred under Section 10(1)(d) of the In...
The Associated Bombay Cinemas Private Limited Vs. Urmi Developers Priv ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR257
B.P. Saraf, J.1. This is an appeal of the original defendants from the order of the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No. 3043 of 1994 in Suit No. 4911 of 1994 whereby the learned Judge allowed the prayer of the original plaintiffs (respondents herein) for appointment of a Court Receiver in respect of the immovable property i.e Strand Cinema and all its available FSI and other benefits and/or rights of construction/development in respect thereof.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows. A deed of partnership was entered into between the appellants (original defendants) and the respondents (original plaintiffs) on 20th March 1992. By the said partnership, the parties agreed to carry on business in partnership in the name and style of M/s. S.V. Corporation as developers of real estate and exhibitors and distributors of motion pictures on terms and conditions set out therein. Clause 3 of the said partnership deed provides that the business of the partnership shall be ...
Ashok S/O Krishnarao Thugaonkar Vs. Pannalal S/O Sukhlal Shivhare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR267
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The present order shall govern the, aforementioned matters. A common question has arisen as to whether against an order passed in distress warrant proceedings, an appeal under Section 26A of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) is possible or whether without preferring an appeal, a revision straightaway is maintainable to this Court. If the appeal is maintainable, then obviously, by passing such appeal, filing of the civil revision could not be possible. It will, therefore, be essential to see whether an appeal against the decision is possible.2. Presently, the subject of distress warrant proceedings is covered by Chapter IVA of the Act. This remedy of distaining the movables of the tenant for rent which is due for more than three months and less than twelve months is available only in the area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court and is restricted to that Court only...
Manubhai Pragji Vashi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR35; 1996CriLJ3910; 1996(2)MhLj615
1. Mr. C.J. Sawant, Advocate-General has raised preliminary objection about the jurisdiction of this court in this contempt petition. He submits that in the contempt petition, the grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondents be punished for gross, wilful and deliberate contempt committed by them by not complying with the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 16-8-95 (reported in AIR1995 SCW 3701 and according to Mr. Sawant, learned Advocate-General, this court has no jurisdiction to examine whether the order of the Supreme Court delivered on 16-8-95 (reported in AIR1995 SCW 3701) has been complied with or not. In other words the objection of the learned Advocate-General is that the High Court cannot invoke its jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India or under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the civil contempt of order or judgment or the direction of the Supreme Court. 2. Confronted with this preliminary objection raised by the Advocate-...
Bhagirath Bhaurao Kanade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)168
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 15-9-1982, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions Case No. 91 of 1982, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us.Along with the appellant, his brother Waman Kanade was also prosecuted and tried but, he has been acquitted vide the impugned judgment.2. The prosecution case in brief runs as under:---The deceased Govinda was the brother of the appellant and Waman Kanade. He was residing at Nandurshingote while the appellant and Waman were residing in a field known as Kazimala at Nasik. A truck had been purchased in the name of the appellant and deceased Govinda had contributed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for its purchase. On account of dispute in connection with purchase of the said truck, a litigation had taken place between the appellant and Waman on one side and deceased on the other. On the night of 5-6-1982 and 6-6-1982...
Fulsing Ramsingh Rajput and Another Vs. Durgabai Wife of Shivsingh Raj ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom201; 1998(2)BomCR453; 1996(2)MhLj770
b) The Court adjudged that the exclusive possession of the property by the co-owner could not be said to be adverse to others unless the denial of the title and the ouster were proved.JUDGEMENT1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 210/79 decided by District Judge, Buldhana on 30/11/82 confirming judgment and decree of partition passed by Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. Buldhana on 13-8-79 in R.C.S. No.243/77.2. Brief facts of the case are that one Ramsingh was the main propositor of the family, who was the material grand-father of plaintiff/respondent. Said Ramsingh was having four sons viz. Rustam (D-1), Fulsing (D-2), Tukaram and Gulabsing-father of plaintiff-respondent. Tukaram one of the sons of Ramsingh was also dead and defendant No.3 Ramdas is son of Tukaram. The father of the plaintiff/respondent Gulabsingh expired on 8-5-57. At the time of death of Gulabsingh, there was a joint family and co-parcenery of defendant4 Nos. 1 to 3 and his ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »