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.
Vijay Changdeo Patil Vs. Satish Sahney, Commissioner of Police, Greate ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)11; 1997CriLJ185
S.V. Savant, J. 1. Heard both the learned counsel. 2. This is a petition by the detenu himself challenging his detention under the order dated 11th August, 1995 issued by the first respondent Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay in exercise of his powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. Under the said order the petitioner was ordered to be detained for a period of one year. The order dated 11th August, 1995 was served on the detenu on 14th August, 1995. It appears that a report under sub-section (5) of S. 3 of the said Act was made on 22nd August, 1995 on which day the State Government had approved the order of detention. A reference to the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the Act was made on 24th August, 1995. The Advisory Board held its meeting on 15th September, 1995 where the detenu was produced. The report and opinion of the Advisory Board was submitted on 28th September, 1995 on which day itself it was received by the State Government. Th...
Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ831Bom
A.A. Desai, J.1 The petitioner Charitable Trust posed a question as to, whether the Central Government within its discretion as conferred by the Act, can refuse to bring a particular provision of the enactment into force. The facts leading to the question are thus:2. The Industrial Disputes Act initially vide. Section 2(j) provide the definition of the term 'Industry'. Subsequently, the term was interpreted by the Supreme Court in a decision reported in Bangalore Wafer Supply and Sewerage Board' v. Rajappa and Ors.--popularly known as 'Bangalore Water Supply. : (1978)ILLJ349SC case. The decision amplified the scope of term 'Industry'. It also covered the charitable trusts. Subsequently, the Parliament passed Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act of 1932. By Clause (e), definition of term 'Industry' has substantially been amended and Charitable organizations have been excluded from the term 'Industry'. However, the Amending Act, by Sub-section (2) of Section 1, provided, 'It shall come in...
The East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR234
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs. The defendant has contested the suit by filing written statement. Issues were framed. Oral evidence was recorded on Commission. Two witnesses have been examined by the plaintiff and two witnesses on behalf of the defendants. Lengthy arguments were addressed by the respective Counsel of both the parties.2. Plaintiffs case is as follows:Plaintiff is a Company which is running hotels at different places including the Hotel Oberoi Towers at Nariman Point, Bombay. On the mezzanine of the ground floor 15000 sq. ft. was given to the defendant on Leave and Licence basis as per licence Deed dated 27th December, 1974 for a period of 12 years under which the defendant had agreed to give loan of Rs. 30 lacs to the plaintiffs. The Licence Fee was fixed at Rs. 60,000/-, which has to be adjusted towards the said loan. Well before the expiry of the period of 12 years of the licence period, the plain...
Francisco Joao Gil Barreto Vs. Shri Filipe Gama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR59
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant (plaintiff in the suit) had filed a suit for permanent in junction in order to restrain the respondent (defendant in the suit) from plucking coconuts and tapping toddy from the coconut trees in the suit properties and from entering in the suit properties. The appellant also sought damages to the tune of Rs. 26,000/-. An application for temporary injunction was filed in the said suit which was dismissed with reference to Chalta Nos. 6 to 9 of P.T. Sheet No. 143 and Chalta No.34 of P.T. Sheet No. 125. In respect of Chalta No. 20 of P.T. Sheet No. 145, the lower Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the same. The appellant challenges the said order dated 30th August, 1993.2. Plaintiff s case, in brief, is that the said suit properties, chalta numbers of which have been enumerated above situated at Vaddem belonged originally to Fr. Jose Gabriel Barreto who by Will dated 9th November, 1965 bequeathed the same to the appellant. Th...
Ligia G. Godinho Vs. Speaker, Legislative Assembly
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR915]; (1998)IIILLJ970Bom
T.K.Chandrasekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner was a Stenographer, working under the respondents since September 19, 1982. In 1988, she was promoted to the post of Assistant. In February 1988, the petitioner went on Maternity Leave and a child was born to her on February 24, 1988. The petitioner was on maternity leave till April 30,1988. Due to deformity in the child, on the advice of the Doctor who recommended surgery of the child she had applied for earned leave for the period between May 1, 1988 and June 29, 1988. She had to further seek extension of her earned leave by her letter dated June 27, 1988. But by letter dated July 1, 1988, issued by the Second Respondent, she was called upon to report for duty latest by July 5, 1988. A copy of the said letter is produced as Exhibit 'A'. On receipt of that letter, as there was (sic.) no option left to her for the sake of her child, she expressed her desire to resign from the post with effect from July 1, 1988.2. It is an admitted case of the...
Veneela Tilak Vs. Shahasane, Assistant Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR634
R.P. Desai, J.1. The Appellant was charged for offences punishable under Section 22 read with Section 8(c) and under Section 23 read with Section 28 of the N.D.P.S. Act and under Section 135(1)(a) read with Section 135(i)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. By his Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 31.3.1993, the Ld. Special Judge, Greater Bombay convicted the Appellant-accused for offence punishable under Section 22 read with Section 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and sentenced her to suffer Rule I for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default, she was to suffer Rule I for 2 years. The accused was further convicted for offence punishable under Section 23 read with Section 28 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and under Section 135(1)(a) read with Section 135(i)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and she was sentenced to suffer Rule I for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In default, she was to suffer further Rule I for 2 years. The said Judgment and Order of conv...
Padmanabh Dyeing and Finishing Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT343Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though both the appeals arise out of different orders-in-original, as both the appellants are the sister concerns and have identical issues for consideration, both were argued together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Appeal No. E/249/87 of M/s. Padmanabh Dyeing and Finishing Works is in relation to Order-in-Original No. 4/MP/87 and Appeal No. E/250/87 of M/s. Padmanabh Silk Mills is in relation to the Order-in-Original No.3/MP/87, both dated 29-1-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara.3. The factory premises of M/s. Padmanabh Silk Mills engaged in manufacture/processing of Man-Made Fabrics were visited by the officers of the Central Excise Department on 11-6-1983 and on physical verification, they found certain discrepancies in the nature of variation in length, non-accountal in the statutory Registers etc., in relation to Lot Nos. 269, 274 and 309 and hence placed 18 pcs.admeasuring 1871.50 L. Meters under seizure. As they were in semi-finished ...
Kamlesh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR889; 1997CriLJ1399; 1997(1)MhLj198
ORDER1. The applicant who is the owner of the Tractor and Trolley bearing Nos. MH 31/G 5241 and HH 31/6934 respectively has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the orders passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Saoner, on the application of releasing the tractor and trolley on Supratnama dated 21-3-1996 in Criminal Case No. 99/96 and the order dated 6-6-1996 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No. 438/96 on the ground that both the impugned orders are illegal. 2. The Round Officer, Khapa Forest Range, Tahsil Saoner, district Nagpur seized the tractor and trolley of the applicant on 8-2-1996 as it was carrying sand from Khapa Range forest for the offences punishable under Section 26(1)(c)(d) and (g) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Forest Officer has reported the seizure of the said tractor and trolley along with sand to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saoner. The applicant ha...
Sitaram S/O Bhagwansahi Khandelwal Vs. Shriram Durgadas Puri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR145
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner-landlord who had purchased the suit premises on 31st October, 1974 for Rs. 41,000/-, initiated the present proceedings by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 431 of 1976 on the file or the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar against the present respondent-tenant for eviction and possession on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent for the period from 1-10-1975 to 31st May, 1976 and further that the petitioner-landlord wanted the premises in question for his bona fide accommodation as he intended to start a hotel business therein.2. In nutshell, the facts are that the Municipal House No. 7293, City Survey No. 3575 situated at Ward No. 6 in Main Bazar area i.e. on Mahatma Gandhi Road, is the suit area which was purchased by the landlord in which since last about 21 years, the respondent-tenant has been doing his business of selling pens and goggles in a demarcated area of 71/2 x 18 ft. on the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 2...
Vithal Ramchandra Patil Vs. Bhagwat Waman Gaikwad and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR327; (1996)98BOMLR597
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. Regular Civil Suit No. 59/1981 was filed by the present respondent No. 1 as a plaintiff against the present petitioner and three others in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamner, on the ground that the sale deed dated 12-5-1976 executed by the original defendant No. 2 - Smt. Parvatibai wd/o Waman be declared as sham and bogus and not binding on the plaintiff and the original defendants 2 to 5. The sale-deed was executed in favour of the present petitioner (original defendant No. 1) for Rs. 6,000/-, the land being Gut No. 31 with an area of 1 hectare 55 R situated at village Takali (Bk), Tq. Jamner District Jalgaon. The suit was filed on 31st March 1981 and summons was issued on 1st of April 1981 thereby fixing the date for appearance of the defendants and for filing of written statement on 21st April, 1981. The record indicates that from 21st April 1981 onwards for one reason or the other, the defendant No. 1 could not file the written statement. On ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »