Mumbai Court August 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.
Prakash Haldankar Vs. Shri Bill Carneiro and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1254
ORDER1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. An order of the District and Sessions Judge, Panaji in Criminal Appeal No. 5/96 dated 6-6-1996 is challenged in this revision. The said order under revision, arises out of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa in Criminal Case No. 243/95/A, dated 31-1-1996. In that judgment of the learned Magistrate, the accused in that case was charged under Section 380, I.P.C. for having committed an offence of theft between 20th October, 1995 at 19.00 hours to 24th October, 1996 at 6.30 hours at Saligao. The accused is alleged to have committed theft of gold bangle, weighing 20 grams, worth Rs. 8,000/- from the jewellery box of his father, defacto complainant, PW 2. At the end of the trial, the learned Magistrate has passed an order convicting the accused under Section 380, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 2 months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo another one month S.I. 2A. While convicting the accu...
Shri Ramakant Wamanrao Deshpande and Others Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1996
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR29; (1996)98BOMLR896; 1997(2)MhLj839
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The question in this writ petition pertains to the provisions of the unamended Ceiling Act as unfortunately those proceedings themselves have not reached the completion. Wamanrao was the original land holder and was having extensive lands. He did not file the return as is required under section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be called as 'Ceiling Act' for short). An inquiry was therefore held and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Reforms), Yavatmal by his order dated 15-1-1973 directed the land holder to file return while imposing fine of Rs. 100/-. A preliminary finding was reached therein that the land holder appeared to have possessed more than what was permitted by the Ceiling Act. The land-lord admittedly filed the return and an inquiry was held and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Wani, by his order dated 31-7-1975 came to the conclusion that the land-lord was possessing surplus land of 142 acres and 25...
Mohomed HussaIn Farah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR603
Ashok Agarwal 1. The present appeal is filed by the original accused, who in the instant case has styled himself as Mohomed Hussain. He seeks to impugn the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay on 11th October, 1993 convicting him under section 21 read with section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter, for short, referred to N.D.P.S. Act) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. At the trial petitioner was charged for offence punishable under section 29 read with sections 8(c), 21, 23, and 30 of the N.D.P.S. Act as also under section 135A of the Customs Act. Since the charge, as framed, has been challenged in the appeal, as being illegal, it will be convenient at this stage to reproduce the same: :'I, S.K. Shah, Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge for Greater Bombay hereby charg...
Francis Xavier Rodrigues Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC706; 1997CriLJ1374
ORDER1. The petitioner is a driver. When he was driving a truck bearing number GDT 8955 on 11-7-1980 at about 19.10 hours, it involved in an accident. The ill fated truck belonged to M/s. V. M. Salgaonkar, an industrial Company. Two labourers who were travelling in the body of the truck were killed and three other labourers were injured, two of them seriously. According to prosecution, the petitioner was negligently driving the said truck on the aforesaid day when the truck reached near Post Office at Dabolim, dashed against a telephone pole, situated on the right hand side of the road. Thereafter, it went ahead and dashed against a mango tree which broke down and then again hit a coconut tree which fell on the truck. Only thereafter that the truck came to halt after travelling for a distance of 128.8 metres. The prosecution has charged the accused under Sections 279 and 304-A, I.P.C. 2. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-de-Gama by judgment dated 21-4-1990, found the accu...
Akbar BadrudIn Jiwani Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR160; 1997(92)ELT483(Bom)
M.B. Shah, C.J. 1. It is the case of the Petitioner that though the petitioner validly and legally imported the goods in question namely slabs of calcereous stones far back in January, 1989, the validity came to be challenged by the Customs Officers and have wrongfully detained the goods leading to incurring of heavy recurring demurrage charges and container charges for no fault of the petitioner. The petitioner was required to litigate the matter right upto the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court finally allowed the matter by judgment rendered on 14th February, 1990. The petitioner submitted that in view of the following operative order passed by the Supreme Court in Akbar Badrudin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs, Bombay : 1990(47)ELT161(SC) the Respondents are required to refund the detention charges and demurrage charges paid by him to the Bombay Port Trust :- '62. In the instant case, even if it is assumed for argument's sake that the stone slabs imported for home consumption are ma...
Ravindra Kondiba Pol and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR64
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same set of facts we propose disposing them of by a common judgment.2. Vide judgment and order dated 15-1-1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 139 of 1982 the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment they have come in appeal before us:3. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under:-The informant Maravya Bengalanna Manjalkar P.W. 4 was maternal aunt of the deceased Sunka. She resided in a tin shed near Azad Hotel in Chaturshringi Road, Vadarwadi, Pune. The deceased was living in a house near Manjalkar Chowk, which from the evidence on record appears to be situated near Azad Hotel.On 10-10-1981 at about 10 p.m. the informant was sitting in front of her shed. At that time she saw that Sunka had gone to purchase cigarette in a pan shop. Near the said shop four other persons...
Virendra and Co Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)60ITD463(Mum.)
1. Assessee has moved this applications alleging certain mistakes in the order of the Tribunal. The issue involved in the appeal before the Tribunal filed by the revenue was as to whether the assessee-company, which was engaged in ship breaking, was an industrial undertaking engaged in manufacturing activities and consequently whether the CIT(A) had erred in directing the ITO to allow the assessee deduction under section 80HHA and under section 80-I of the I.T. Act. The assessee had submitted a fairly large paper book containing 84 pages which included copies of orders of various Tribunal judgments and copies of extracts of various Acts and notifications from R.B.I., UCO Bank and Ministry of Industry. It had also filed a detailed statement of facts and summarised grounds of appeal in which it had cited several High Court decisions also.2. When the case came up for hearing, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that although it was true that a large number of decisions on w...
Shri Vitthal Pandharinath Dhere Vs. Shree Kedarnath Shikshan Sanstha a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1996
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR592
ORDERN.D. Vyas, J.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the judgment and order of the School Tribunal, Pune, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed. By the said appeal, the petitioner had challenged the termination order passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Shree Kedar High School of which one Mr. M.S. Patil was the Head Master. This appointment had taken place on 24th June 1985 and although no appointment letter was received, the admitted position is that the petitioner was appointed on probation of two years. It is the petitioner's contention that on the completion of one year, the petitioner was given annual increment in service and that during his tenure, the results of the standards to which he was teaching were excellent. On 31st March 1987, a notice of termination was issued by the said School authority s...
Ravirao S/O. Ganpatrao Taley Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2700]
1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The order dated 1st September, 1994 dismissing the petitioner from service as Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon is challenged in this petition. The only point agitated before us is that the Inquiry Officer had recommended the punishment of withholding of increments for a period of three years with permanent effect on future increments. However, the petitioner was dismissed from service over looking the punishment proposed by the Inquiry Officer. 3. After the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by which, the petitioner was directed to show cause on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer as to why instead of minor penalty as suggested by the Inquiry Officer, major penalty of dismissal from service as prescribed by Rule 5(1)(ix) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, should not be imposed upon him. 4. Thereafter the order of dismissal is passed having regard to the finding recorde...
Dinkar Keshav Deshmukh Vs. Vasantdada Sugar Institute
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR138; 1997(1)Mh.L.J.191
S.H. Kapadia, J1. The short point involved in this Petition is: whether Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act as amended by Maharashtra Amending Act 18 of 1987 would apply retrospectively to those Leave and Licence Agreements entered into prior to October 1, 1987 when the Amending Act 18 of 1987 came into force.2. The facts giving rise to the above dispute, briefly, are as follows:3. The Respondent herein was put in possession of the suit premises on September 1, 1979. On March 20, 1980 the purported Leave and Licence Agreement came to be executed. The Agreement indicates the date of commencement as September 1, 1979. The tenor of the Agreement indicates that the Agreement was for 11 months and it expired on August 31, 1980. On August 31, 1980, the Respondent did not vacate the premises. On February 7, 1992 the Respondent herein instituted a Declaratory Suit under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act inter alia alleging that the Agreement of Leave and Licence dated March 20, 1980 was, in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »