Mumbai Court September 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.
Rajendra S/O Marotrao Pathare and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Thr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR548
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. By this writ petition, the original landholders are challenging the orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal as also the original order passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. By the instant order, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal had declared 14 acres and 13 gunthas of land as surplus land. The appeal against the same had tailed. The landholder has come up now in this writ petition before this Court.2. The original landholder Marotrao Deorao Pathare is now no more and the petition is being continued by his legal representatives. He had filed a return and originally his 14 acres and 13 gunthas of land was found to be surplus by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. He filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The appeal was allowed and the matter was directed to be remanded to theSurplus Land Determination tribunal for fresh enquiry in respect of 9 acres and 21 gunthas of land which was transferred by the landholder...
Minhas Steels Ltd. and Another Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR350; 1997(3)BomCR522; [1998]94CompCas21(Bom); 1997(2)MhLj480
A.P. Shah J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Punjab and Sind Bank, respondent No. 1 to withdraw its letters dated October 20, 1995, and January 6, 1996, and to release the working capital of Rs. 2.05 crores in phases in favour of petitioner No. 1-company. The factual antecedents in which the controversy leading to this petition has arisen may be stated first. The first petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and the second petitioner is the managing director of the company. Petitioner No. 1 was initially incorporated as a private limited company and was converted into a public limited company on April 21, 1992. The company is established to manufacture ingots and alloy steels. The project of petitioner No. 1 was initially appraised by the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (MSFC), respondent No. 2, and accepted by the Canara Bank, wherein term loan was to be granted b...
Sau. Minakshi Murlidhar Ghodke and ors. Vs. the Additional Commissione ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR422
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Mr. Sakhare, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that the Returning Officer committed serious error in rejecting the nominations of the petitioners by relying upon Bye-Laws No. 31 of Bye-Laws of the Bank and the Additional Commissioner also seriously erred in sustaining the said order. According to Mr. Sakhare, the disqualification for being elected to the committee of respondent No. 4 society which is specified society is governed by section 144E of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and while scrutinizing the nomination papers, the Returning Officer has to act in accordance with Rule 23 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971. Mr. Sakhare contends that bye laws have no statutory force and cannot be equated with the statutory provision and even if Bye-Laws No. 31 of Bye-Laws of the society provided for eligibility for election for director, the same could not have been considered in view of the...
Rajaram Raghunath Darekar and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR96
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Since both these criminal appeals arise out of the same incident and a common judgment, we are also disposing of the same by one judgment.2. Vide judgment and order dated 30-6-1983, passed in Sessions Case No. 26 of 1983, the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, convicted and sentenced the four appellants in the manner stated hereinafter :---(i) 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to imprisonment for life; and (ii) 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but awarding no separate sentence. It may be mentioned that by the impugned judgment, the learned Judge acquitted 4 other co-accused persons viz. Ramdas Darekar, Babulal Darekar, Sushila Ramdas Darekar and Laxmibai Krishnaji Darekar. Since the State of Maharashtra has not chosen to prefer an appeal against the acquittal of the said persons, the same has become final.3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows :---The appellants Krishnaji and Raghunath were real brothers of the deceased...
Municipal Mazdoor Union Vs. Municipal Commissioner and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR409]; (1997)IILLJ309Bom
ORDER1. This petition under Article 226 takes exception to the eligibility criteria fixed by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission for admission to the screening test for the post of Ward Officer, Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC). The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, representing a large number of BMC employees. The petitioner Union has filed this petition for and on behalf of Pest Control Officers working in the Insecticide Branch of the Health Department of the BMC listed in Ex. A to the petition. 2. Briefly the facts are that the BMC by its notification no. NBM-10(a)(3)/34/XM dated May 15, 1996 caused an advertisement through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) in the local newspaper inviting applications for 11 vacancies of Ward Officers in the Municipal superior service. In the said notification qualifications, eligibility criteria and other requirements are stated. Clause 4 of the said notification lays down qualification...
Sangli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. D.K. Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ1083Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. Despite the formidable bulk of this Writ petition, the legal issue thrown up for consideration by the Writ Petition is narrow.2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner impugns an order of the Labour Court, Sangli dated August 8, 1990 made in Application (BIR)No. 8 of 1989 as affirmed in Appeal by the order of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur dated September 17, 1991 made in Appeal (IC) No. 28 of 1990, both under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The Petitioner is a Co-operative Society carrying on banking business in Sangli District at different branches, all of which are amenable to the provisions of the Act. At the material time, the 1st Respondent was employed as Deputy Manager (Agriculture, Technical and Development Cell) at Sangli. By a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Petitioner on July 22, 1989, it was resolved that the services ...
inspector General of Police Vs. Sayed Adam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR68]; (1998)IIILLJ1012Bom
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. One Sayed Adam filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Goa, claiming compensation from the Inspector-General of Police, his employer, on the ground of disability sustained by him due to the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. He contended that on June 4, 1979, while he was employed as a driver in Goa Police he met with an accident while he was proceeding to Valpoi from Pale on official duty. He suffered injuries on his right cheek with a fracture and permanent loss of the right eye. He also suffered injuries to the left rib, left thumb and left hand. He also made requests for compensation to the Office of the Inspector-General of Police on February 11, 1980, but there was no response.2. The application was resisted on behalf of the Inspector-General of Police. It was denied that the accident took place in the course and was arising out of the employment. The evidence recorded showed that while the applicant was...
Sheela Ramesh Kini and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)304
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. Both the petitions contain similar prayers and, therefore, are being disposed of by a common order. Both petitioners claim transfer of investigation from the State Police (C.I.D.) to C.B.I. Culprits involved in the offence, it is alleged, are big guns who yield considerable clout with political high-ups. Culprits, it is feared, belong to a political party in power which runs the Government. State Police including C.I.D. functions under the State Government. It cannot and will not be able to fairly and fearlessly carry out an effective and efficient investigation in order to bring to book the offenders and perpetrators of the crime.2. Justification set up to claim transfer of investigation, we are afraid, we are unable to share, the apprehension expressed, we quite understand. Present case, as is clear from our packed Court room, has generated a lot of interest. May be even a controversy.3. It all started on 23rd of July, 1996. Ramesh Kini made a disappearance from h...
Manohar S/O Narayan Zilape and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR114
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. An extremely unusual petition is filed by the present petitioner in the matter of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. Some facts would be necessary :One Narayan Marotrao Zilape and his minor son Manohar who is now the present petitioner purchased 29.80 acres of land at Nimgaon which was held in Bhumiswami rights as also 0.72 acres which was held in Bhumidhari rights from Devidas s/o Ambadas, Trimbak s/o Ambadas, Sunil s/o Ambadas and Smt. Nirmala w/o Ambadas. This sale-deed is dated 20-4-1967. We are presently concerned only with the 29.80 acres of land which was held by the vendors in the Bhumiswami rights. It is the claim of the petitioner that ever since the sale the petitioner continues to be in possession till today. Now it is an admitted position that at the time when this sale took place the Ceiling Act was in vogue. However, the aforementioned vendors had not filed any return under the unamended Ceiling Act. They, theref...
Chief Commercial Superintendent of Railways, Secunderabad and Another ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom378
ORDERTipnis, J.1. The respondent, Original, Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 6/82 in the Court of District Judge, South Goa, Margao, against the Chief Commercial Superintendent of Railways Secunderabad and Union of India for damages. The plaintiff claimed that he delivered a bicycle value at Rs. 250/- at Varanasi Railway Station on 17 May, 1981 for transporting the same to Margao Railway Station. He also paid freight charges of Rs. 44/-. The consignment, namely the bicycle never arrived at Margao. Plaintiff wrote, several letters as also two registered letters and claimed damages. However, the Railway Authority did not care to respond to the same. Thereafter, the plaintiff was constrained to issue notice to both the Defendants under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code as also under Section 78-B r/w Section 73 of Indian Railways Act. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed damages as under :-1. Rs. 250.00 towards value of the bicycle.2. Rs. 44.00 towards freight charges.3. Rs. 6.00 towards ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »