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.
Rishi Kumar and Others Vs. Mahesh Chandra Agarwal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)852; 1997CriLJ2113
ORDER1. Admit. 2. Senior Advocate Shri S. Dessai waives service on behalf of respondents No. 1 With consent of Advocates for the parties heard forthwith. 3. The petitioners have approached this Court under section 482, Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 78/P/96 filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners the Court of Judicial Magistrate F. C. Vasco-da-Gama. The petitioners also seek to set aside search warrant issued by the Magistrate by impugned orders dated 21-5-1996 with a further prayer to stop the search forthwith. Search in pursuance of the search warrant issued by the Magistrate had already started from 22nd May, 1996 and the same was in progress when this matter was heard. It was stated at that time that the search was in final stages and was due to be completed shortly. 4. Advocates for the parties argued the matter at length on facts as well as on law points. 5. The main contentions advanced by Advocate Shri Badrinarayan for the petitioners ar...
Kamalabai W/O Madhavlal Gujrathi and ors. Vs. Raziya Begum Died Her L. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR92
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. This is a revision application by an unsuccessful tenants, who have all along been contending that they were not liable to be evicted from the premises in question for various reasons. To understand the matter, it is necessary to mention few facts. The present petitioners happened to be tenants, who are the legal representatives of original tenant-Madhavlal and the present respondents happened to be the landlords, who also have been substituted in place of the original landlord. The suit property is Municipal House No. 118, situated at Mission Hospital, Sadarbazar, Jalna, in which the original respondent-Madhavlal happened to be the tenant. Since the landlords were in need of accommodation, as also they had noticed that the petitioner was a defaulter and also had created sub-tenancy, a necessary notice, dated 8.11.1978 was issued to the petitioner, which was duly replied by reply dated 8.12.1979 by the petitioners-tenants. Since the notice was not complied with, th...
Ramesh Bhagwan Manjrekar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)126; 1997CriLJ796
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. By means of this appeal the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 31st May, 1982 passed in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1981, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, whereby each of them have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter : (i) Under Section 302 read with 34, I.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year : and (ii) Under Section 324 read with 34, I.P.C. to suffer R.I. for 18 months. The substantive sentences of the appellants have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as follows : Appellant Ramesh Bhagwan Manjrekar and Vasudeo Bhagwan Manjrekar are real brothers. Appellant Ramdas Penter's wife and that of Ramesh Bhagwan Manjrekar are real sisters. Appellant Raju alias Don Shaikh Ibrahim is said to be an associate of the remaining appellants. Ms. Shakuntala Maruti Shelar P.W. 7 is the mother of the dec...
Laxman Bala Surve and ors. Vs. Pesh Builders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR115
B.P. Saraf, J.1. This appeal gives rise to an important and interesting question of law as to whether an order passed by a Single Judge of this Court under Order XXI, Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, making the notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 absolute, is an appealable order under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC') or Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. In the instant case, the application for execution having been made more than two years after the date of the decree, the trial Court issued a notice contemplated by Order XXI, Rule 22 of the C.P.C. to the judgment-debtors (appellants herein) requiring them to show cause why the decree should not be executed against them. Considering the cause shown, the learned Judge made the notice absolute. This appeal is directed against the above order.3. The Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the appeal itself. According to him, no appeal lies against an order of...
Dilip Laxman Bobade Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR651; 1997BomCR(Cri)55
M.B. Shah, C.J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 14th February, 1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, convicting the petitioner (original accused No. 1) for the offence punishable under section 494 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has filed this revision application.2. The complainant Sumitra Dilip Bobade has filed a complaint against the petitioner, his brother and mother for the offence punishable under section 494 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.', for short), before the Metropolitan Magistrate's 17th Court, Mazagon, Bombay. It was alleged that complainant Sumitra was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner; the marriage has taken place at Bombay on 5th May, 1979 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, the complainant resided with accused No. 1 and his parents and other family members; after sometime, the complainant was often taunted by the accused on account ...
Gopal S/O Jianna Madrewar Vs. Poshatti S/O Bhojanna Khurd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR295
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The present petition is directed against the order, dated 19.3.1983, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No. 157/A/1980-Nanded, whereby the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the appeal maintaining the order, dated 15.3.1980, passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Kinwat, in file No. 79-A-Adiwasi-CR-81. The Additional Tahsildar, by his abovementioned order, dated 15.3.1980 directed that the suit land be restored to the tribal transferors i.e. the present respondents by evicting the present petitioner-non-tribal transferee.2. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the Additional Tahsildar, Kinwat, observed that one Poshatti s/o Bhojanna and his brother's wife Bhojubai w/o Poshetti transferred the suit land bearing Survey No. 165-E, admeasuring 6 gunthas and Survey No. 165-U, admeasuring 6 gunthas, (new Survey No. 669, admeasuring 9 gunthas,) situated at village Apparao Peth, by a registered sale-deed, dated 24....
icim Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT373Tri(Mum.)bai
1. By the order impugned in the appeal, it has been held that controller cards imported with Winchester Disc Drive fall under Appx.2B of the Import Policy 1985-88 and therefore required a licence for its importation.2. It is claimed in the appeal that the invoice description includes controller cards and that the goods were cleared under concessional rate of duty on the basis of a certificate granted by the Department of Electronics. In the certificate, the department has treated the Winchester Disc Drive and Controller Card as a single unit and the value of the Controller has been included in the value of the Winchester Disc Drive. In support of its contention the judgment 'of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The State of Orissa reported in AIR 1970 SC 253 (SC) is cited.3. We are not able to agree that the Department of Electronics has certified the import of controller cards, in the absence of material to show that the Department of Electronics was told by the appellant ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Maneklal Harilal Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT673Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today the matter was listed for admission. However, the appeal is admitted and the same is taken up for hearing on merits.2. The appeal is directed against the captioned order in appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad allowing the refund claim for Rs. 5,651/- filed by the respondents in relation to the double payment made.3. Shri Mondal, the ld. SDR, submits that it is only because of the legal aspect discussed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the department has to come in appeal. In his submission, there is no dispute about the double payment of duty which was paid on 24-2-1993.The claim was filed on 12-1-1994 which is obviously beyond the period of six months contemplated under Section 11B of the Act. In his submission, the Commissioner (Appeals) has, while allowing the credit observed that the relevant date for computing the period of limitation in relation to the refund claim filed on account of double payment of duty, would be the date on wh...
Arjandas Naraindas Adnani Vs. Narsingdas Naraindas Adnani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom20; 1997(1)BomCR509; (1996)98BOMLR494
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. The sole controversy in these appeals is whether Court can award interest under S. 29 of the Arbitration Act from the 'date of the award' or it can be awarded only from the 'date of the decree'. According to the appellant, in view of the clear language of S. 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, interest can be awarded by the Court only from the date of the decree and not from the date of the award. Reliance is placed in support of this contention on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jain Associates, : [1994]3SCR551 . This contention of the appellant is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who submits that the power of the Court under S. 29 of the Arbitration Act is wide enough to enable it to grant interest even from the date of the award. Reliance is placed in support of this contention on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P). Ltd., : [1989]1SC...
Viraf Noshir Bilimoria Vs. University of Mumbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom46; 1997(1)BomCR209; 1996(2)MhLj958
ORDER1. This petition under Art. 226 raises question as to the scope and effect of clause (8) of the Ordinance 237A of Mumbai University relating to revaluation of answer books at the University examinations. Briefly the facts giving rise to this petition are as follows: The petitioner is presently studying the Senior LL.M. Course, Group IX i.e. the subjects of Environmental Law in the Department of law, Mumbai University. In the Junior LL.M. Course, he was a student studying for Group VIII i.e. the subjects of Law of Crimes in the year 1994-95. The examination for Junior LL.M. was held in May, 1995 for the academic year 1994-95 Group VIII in the said examination is known as Criminal Law Group as all the three papers have their base in the study of crimes viz. : (i) Paper I -- Criminal Jurisprudence-Origin, (ii) Paper II - Criminology - The Science of Crimes and (iii) Paper III - Indian Penal Code, 1986, In the said course, a student has to obtain a minimum of 45 marks in each of the t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »