Mumbai Court November 1997 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.
Shri Namdeo Keshav Gurav Vs. Nana Bhau Yadav, Since Deceased by His Hi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)BomCR879
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner in detail. The short question that involved in this case is that whether the land in question is a land cultivating sugarcane or not. The application for restoration of the land made by the landlord has been allowed by the original authority by order dated 26th February 1974 and the restoration of possession of the land was granted. Against this order, the respondents herein filed an appeal. The appellate authority set aside the order on the ground that on earlier occasion, the landlord succeeded in getting half of the land and, therefore, present application is impermissible. Against this order, the landlord filed revision. The revision has been dismissed confirming the order of the appellate authority.2. The petitioner contended that before the original authority that he has adduced evidence that the lease of the land is for sugarcane cultivation and, therefore, the orders passed by the authorities are illegal. ...
Kum. Maria Eliza Marques Vs. Shri Madhukar M. Moraskar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR703; 1998(3)BomCR36
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The group of eight writ petitions was taken up together for hearing and is disposed of by this common judgment since in all the writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1985, whereby section 2(i) of Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 has been amended.2. We propose to take the common question relating to constitutional validity of Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1985 (for short 'Amendment Act') first.3. Some aspects of tradition and modern trends of the society in Goa have been dealt with by Mr. S.R. Phal in his book 'Society in Goa'. Chapter 3 in the said book deals with the Mundkars of Goa. According to the author, Mundkar is a Konkani term applied to a person in Goa who resides in a house built in the property of landlord, for watching and protecting the property of the landlord. The house is...
Anna Babu Sul and Another Vs. Laxman Pandurang Tiwatne (Since Deceased ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR269; 1998(5)BomCR301; 1998(1)MhLj614
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioners challenge the order passed in revision by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in proceedings No. MRT.SH.VI. 6/81 (TEN.B. 185/81) : Pune dated 13th April, 1983 wherein the revision application filedby respondents Nos. 2 to 5 is allowed and the order passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside restoring the order passed on 30th November 1977 wherein the right of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1984 has been recognised.2. A few facts of this case are necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition :One Dagadu Ramji Raut was the original owner of the land comprising Survey No. 27/11 (Gat No. 215) admeasuring 1 H. 76 R. in Jalabhavi village, Taluka Malsiras, District Solapur. It appears that he sold the land to Laxman Pandurang Tiwatne who is the 1st respondent in this petition. Interestingly, the 1st respondent again gave the land back to Dagadu Ramji Raut and allowed...
Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union and anr. Vs. Madhukar S. Wani and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR225]
V.H. Bhairavia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18th April, 1996, passed by the Respondent No. 1, cancelling the registration of the Appellant Trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. 2. In exercise of the power vested under Section 10(b) of the Act, the Registrar of Trade Unions cancelled the registration of the appellant-Tata Memorial Hospital Workers' Union. The said order is challenged. It is alleged that it is a mala fide action taken with a view to show favour to the respondents rival union leaders. 3. Heard Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sanjay Singhavi, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. It has been contended by Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants that the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction in as much as a judicial proceeding is already pending on the self same allegations, which has formed the basis of the cancellation of the registration of the appellant. It is furthe...
Smt. Dagadibai Anand Jadhav Vs. Shri S.C. Malhotra, Commissioner of Po ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)702; 1998CriLJ1376
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the order of detention dated 4th June, 1997 passed by the Police Commissioner, Brihan Mumbai and to release the detenu who is detained in Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik. 2. In the exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Act No. 55 of 1981, hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), the Police Commissioner, Brihan Mumbai passed an order on 4th June, 1997 detaining the detenu Suresh Anant Jadhav with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Thereafter the detenu was arrested on 18th June, 1997 and was served with the order of detention. The grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 20th June, 1997 together wit...
Kishore Kumar B. Zaveri and Another Vs. Navinchandra H. Somaiya and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Bom153; 1998(1)ALLMR579; 1998(4)BomCR75; (1998)2BOMLR82
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,83,480/- as per the particulars of claim Ex. 1 to the plaint; with further interest @ 24% p.a. from the defendant No. 1. An injunction is also sought against the defendants No. 1 and 2 restraining them from collecting rent payable to the plaintiffs by the defendant No, 3. A permanent injunction is sought restraining the defendant No. 3 from paying the rent payable by them to the plaintiffs in their respective share of 97% to the defendants No. 1 and 2.2. The Notice of Motion No. 2112 of 1995 was taken out by the plaintiffs for interim injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 from collecting the rent payable to the plaintiffs by the defendant No. 3. An order of injunction was also sought against the defendant No. 3 restraining him from paying the rent by them to the plaintiffs in respect of the share of the plaintiffs. This Notice of Motion came up for hearing on 3rd August, 1995. A...
Gajarabai Narayan Chauvan Vs. Ratnabai Vishnu Gaikwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR585; 1998(4)BomCR81; 1998(1)MhLj562
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. Under the impugned order, the preliminary objection raised by the landlord viz. the respondent herein, has been sustained by the revisional authority.3. The petitioner is in succession in interest of one Hausabai who was a widow of Laxman Jadhav to whom the property originally belongs to. While the property was being enjoyed by the said widow as a tenant, a suo motu proceedings under section 32-G of the said Act, has been taken by the authority and in that proceedings, it is alleged, that Hausabai had made a statement that she was not cultivating the land. However, after the death of widow Hausabai, the petitioner filed an application under section 32-G of the Act, for fixation of purchase price. In tha...
Chandrakant Krishna Bankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR25
A.P. Shah, J.1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking premature release on the plea that he is entitled to be considered for such release under the Guidelines dated 16th November, 1978 framed by the State of Maharashtra for premature release of prisoners serving life sentence (hereinafter referred to as '1978 Guidelines'). The facts leading to this Writ Petition are few and may be shortly stated. The petitioner was tried and convicted on 30th May, 1981 under Sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur and was sentenced to death. The death sentence was confirmed by this Court on 28th September, 1981. The appeal filed by the petitioner to the Supreme Court came to be dismissed on 5th April, 1982. Subsequently, the death sentence awarded to the petitioner was commuted to life imprisonment by the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution in a mercy petition submitted by the petitione...
Jose Antonio Fernandes Vs. Fabrica of the Church of Raia and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR162; 1998(4)BomCR518
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J. 1. Soon after the matter was admitted, steps were taken to serve the other side and with great difficulties, the respondent No. 1 came to be served by 19-7-1997. So far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, previous efforts having failed, order for substituted service was passed and that is how he came to be served on 16-10-1997. 2. Inspite of the service, no one has been appearing for any one of the respondents. The question involved in the matter is whether the order of summary eviction should have been passed by the Rent Controller and by the Administrative Tribunal in respect of the rented premises. As per say of the landlord, it happens to be an open piece of land having an area of about 100 sq. metres. 3. The petitioner was a tenant of the respondent No. 1, in respect of a built up premises, running his business and wanted further area of 100 sq. metres, near by the side of the workshop, so that he can store his goods and run his workshop more efficiently. 4. Aft...
Josts Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)LC233Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals are against the Order Nos. 250-251/96-Commr., dated 20-11-1996 wherein he had confirmed the demand of duty totalling amount of Rs. 5,00,50,904/- against the appellant as demanded from them under the two Show Cause Notices dated 31-3-1995, 7-10-1995. He also levied a penalty of Rs. 5,00,50,904/- on appellant in appeal filed by M/s. Josts Engineering Co. Ltd. He also inflicted a penalty of Rs. 53,00,000/- on the other appellant Shri K.R. Prasad. He also ordered the appellant M/s. Josts Engineering Co. Ltd. to pay interest of 20% on delayed payment of duty under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act.2. Appellants Josts Engineers Co. Ltd. are an Engineering Co. Ltd. engaged inter alia in the designing supply, erection and commissioning of spray/painting systems. The appellants also manufacture certain goods upon which the appellants have been regularly paying excise duty, which position is not in dispute in this appeal. They are in the manufacture of various types of goo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »