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.
Sampat S/O Zingu Vs. Farooq Ali S/O Chunnilal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR699
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The present proceedings are initiated on the basis of an application under section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ('the Act') for short). The present petitioner - Sampat s/o Zingu claim to be a tenant over an area of 9 acres 20 gunthas from Field Survey No. 94 having an area of 11 acres 32 gunthas and Field Survey No. 93 having an area of 17 acres 11 gunthas. These two field Survey Numbers subsequently appear to have been consolidated into Gut No. 277. The application under section 98 of the Act was filed by the present petitioner on 21st January, 1980 against the present respondents. This application was registered as an Application No. 81/IR/TNC/53 on the file of the Collector, Aurangabad. In his application, it was the contention of the petitioner that he was a protected tenant along with one deceased Maruti s/o Abaji as a co-tenant from the year 1941-42. It was also his contention that his possession as ...
Shri Purushottam Pandurang Nipane Vs. Shri Tarachand Purushottam Nipan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR259
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Original defendant No. 2, presently defendant No. 1 - Purushottam Nipane has filed this revision challenging therein a common order passed on Exhibits 28, 30 and 35. Exhibit 28 is a compromise application, while Exhibit 30 is an objection raised to the same by non-applicant No. 1/plaintiff, and Exhibit 35 is an amendment application again by the plaintiff. By the instant common order, the trial Court has deferred the enquiry into the compromise in Exhibit 28 pursuant to the objection (Exhibit 30) raised by the plaintiff, alongwith the final hearing of the suit, while Exhibit 35 stands allowed and the plaintiff has been allowed to amend his stand. Few facts will be necessary.2. A Civil Suit came to be filed, being Civil Suit No. 1329 of 1990 for permanent injunction and damages. In this civil suit, the trial Court passed an order of status quo on the temporary injunction application on 18.6.1990. However, the said status quo order was vacated on 1.8.1990. The order ...
Govind S/O Jagnnath Samarth and Another Vs. Pundlik S/O Jagnnath Samar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR132; 1996(2)MhLj612
ORDERV. S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall govern the above-referred two revisions as the questions are common and the civil suits in which the injunction was claimed are filed by the common plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff Pundlik tiled a civil suit, inter alia, contending that his brother Govind had leased out field survey No. 65/3 to him, while in the other suit, he claimed that his sister Indirabai has leased out field survey No.65/4F to him, in the year 1992-93 and that he was in exclusive possession thereof. He alleged that defendants Govind and Indirabai had become the owners of the suit fields after their death of their father in rthe year 1975, that there was a partition in the year 1989 inter ssc between the brothers and the sisters and then in 1989, the abovementioned leasa was created in his favour. He also alleged that he was in exclusive possession as a tenant and had acquired the tenancy rights and as such the defendants, namely, Govind in one suit and Indirabai in the ot...
Bhausaheb Alias Babu Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ467
1. Appellant-original accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by Shri J. A. Shaikh, first Additional Session Judge, Beed, in S.C. No. 168/1995, convicting the appellant under Section 304(1) of I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months on 27-2-1996. Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Beed (hereinafter referred to as the learned Judge) has acquitted the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. Usual set off is given to the appellant under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 2. In short, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was then working as a Lineman in M.S.E.B. Department and was posted at Arvee. He had erected a hut in his agricultural land and it is situated at a distance of about 1 km. from village Arvee. Vatsalabai is the first wife of the appellant while Sindhubai (deceased) was his second wife. Vatsalabai...
John Anthony D'costa Vs. State (P. I. Margao Police Station) and anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)212; 1997CriLJ1418
1. The present revision application arises from the order dated 25th July 1994 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 71 of 1993 by the Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao whereby the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 71 of 1993 on 2nd December 1993 was set aside and the car in question was directed to continue to be in possession of the respondent No. 2 herein on the indemnity bond Exhibit 5 of Rs. 2 lakhs till the petitioner herein is able to establish his right to the car by due process of law. 2. Various contentions are raised on both sides. However, a brief narration of the facts in the matter will suffice to dispose of this matter finally. I, therefore, with the consent of the parties, proceed to decide this matter finally. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the possession of the car was taken by the police on 23rd May 1993 from the custody of the petitioner when the car was parked by him at Margao. It is ...
The State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Narayan Agro Udyog Private Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR21
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. This first appeal is preferred by the appellants against the Judgment and decree dated 15-2-1992 passed by the Vth Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Special Civil Suit No. 167 of 1990. By the aforesaid Judgment and decree, the trial Court has passed the decree in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit, being Special Civil Suit No. 167 of 1990 for a declaration that the suit lands are non-agricultural lands on the basis of the permission deemed to have been granted under section 44(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code of 1966' for the sake of brevity. The plaintiffs also prayed for mandatory injunction for a direction to the appellant No. 4/defendant No. 4 to issue Sanad to the plaintiffs as required under section 44(6) of the Code of 1966 in respect of the suit lands and also for quashing all the proceedings initiated by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4- the present appellants a...
R.G. Engineering Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This Appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 2101/88-BCH, dated 13-5-1988, confirming the Order-in-Original No. S/10-202/87-A dated 23-12-1987, passed by the Dy. Collector of Customs, Group A, Mumbai.2. The appellant are the L.A. Holders of the licence issued to one M/s.United Industries, Calcutta, issued under Para 111(1) of the Policy AM 85-88. The licence, as per list attached, permitted import of various types of Ball Bearings and other items and the value limit was fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/-. The appellants caused import of ball bearing No. 6204 to the extent of Rs. 87144/- and sought clearance under the aforesaid Emergency Spares Licence. The same was objected to on the ground that there was a misuse of the licence, as the appellants had imported only one specific item as against several other items specified in the licence, as required for immediate replacement. The adjudication proceedings were conducted, and the clearance was refused and goods were confiscated unde...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Akry Rasayan
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT81Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These are four Miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue praying for condonation of the delay in filing the appeals. In these four appeals the respondents are M/s. Akry Rasayan, M/s. Sunrise, M/s.Sunglow Inds. and M/s. General Mfg. & Trading Corpn. A Notice for today's hearing had been sent to all the respondents. M/s. Sun Glow Inds. are represented by Shri M.B. Deodhar, Consultant and M/s. General Mfg. & Trading Corpn. are represented by Shri Vipin Jain, C.A. There is no response from the two respondents M/s. Akry Rasayan and M/s.Sunrise. As in all the four Misc. applications, similar delay of 33 days is involved and the same ground had been adduced by the Revenue.2. For M/s. General Mfg. & Trading Corpn. Shri Vipin Jain [submitted] that the appeal should have been normally filed within the period of three months and there are no adequate grounds for condoning the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue. On behalf of M/s.General Mfg. & Trading Co...
Badlu Maurya Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)847; 1997CriLJ1250
ORDER1. The Applicant stands charged for possession of 5 kgs. of charas under S. 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the said Act). The charge has already been framed against the applicant. 2. The applicant sought bail on two grounds namely : (i) The Investigating Officer had conducted the search in the house of the applicant after sunset and in accordance with proviso to S. 42(1) of the said Act he was required to record grounds of his beliefs in terms of the said proviso. This was not done by the Investigating Officer; and (ii) The Investigating Officer did not forward the grounds of beliefs which are to be recorded under the proviso to the superior officer in terms of S. 41(2) of the said Act. After detailed discussion of the facts and circumstances of the case, Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa rejected the bail application. The applicant seeks bail on the same grounds in this application. 3. Learned Advocate Shri J. D'Souza...
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others Vs. Anant Dattatraya Ka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: 1998(2)BomCR368
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. In this Revision Application, an order rejecting an application under section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code is assailed.2. A suit has been filed by the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff challenged his termination vide order dated 23-9-1994. He prayed for a relief of a declaration that the termination order is illegal, null and void and also claimed a direction to reinstate the plaintiff at his former post with continuity of service and full back wages issuing the mandatory injunction. The defendants filed an application Exhibit 19 objecting to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. They prayed that the issue of jurisdiction should be decided as a preliminary issue under section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code. They pointed out in their application that the plaintiff had filed the suit demanding the reliefs under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and in the whole plaint, he had relied on these provisions and based his claim on the same. It was further...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »