Mumbai Court March 1997 Judgments
Smt. Chandrabhaga Pundurang Ranjane Vs. Shri R.H. Mendoca, Commissione ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)134; 1997(3)MhLj74
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsels; Shri Chitnis for the petitioner, Shri Patil for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Mehta for respondent No. 4.2. The petitioner Smt. Chandrabhaga Pandurang Ranjane is the mother of the detenue Prakash Pandurang Ranjane who was detained under the order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Thane on 4th May, 1996 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The order dated 4th May 1996 was served on the detenue on 5th May, 1996. It is not necessary to discuss the several contentions sought to be raised since, in our view, the petitioner must succeed on the contentions raised in para (F) of the grounds. Para (F) reads as under :F. That for and on behalf of the detenue, a representation has been forwarded to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. Department of Internal Security, on or about 27th June 1996 and it is necessary that the said representation must be conside...
Tag this Judgment!Colaba Central Co-operative Consumers Wholesale and Retail Stores Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Bom)394
DR. B. P. SARAF, J. :By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee cannot claim a deduction either under s. 37 or s. 28 of the amount set apart for the capital contribution redemption fund ?'2. This reference pertains to the asst. yr. 1975-76. The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Under the Scheme of financial assistance to the Consumer Co-operatives under the Centrally sponsored scheme, the State Government contributed to the share capital of the assessee co-operative society a sum of Rs. 21 Lakhs. An agreement was entered into between the State Government and the assessee co-operative society for that purpose. As per the terms of the agreement, the share capital contribution of the St...
Tag this Judgment!Dattu Balu Sargar Vs. the Docks Manager, Bombay Port Trust and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR99
ORDERS.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this petition, petitioner seeks to challenge the order of dismissal passed by the Bombay Port Trust dismissing the petitioner from service after holding departmental inquiry under Rule 22(2)(b) of the Disciplinary Rules applicable tothe non-scheduled staff of the B.P.T. inter alia on the ground of theft and/or fraud and dishonesty in connection with the property of B.P.T. 2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition, briefly, are as follows :- 3. Petitioner came to be appointed as Mazdoor with B.P.T. in 1957. On 19th/21st June 1971, he was chargesheeted. According to the imputations annexed to the chargesheet, the petitioner came to Yellow Gate turnstile on 17-04-1975 at 1.30 P.M. in order to go out of Yellow Gate when he was searched by Head Constable No. 6323/I when he found something concealed on the petitioner's abdomen under his dhoti. At that time Police Constable No. 604/I was also present along with Shri Pereira, Preventive Officer from the Customs ...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Sadashiv Chandwandkar Vs. District Judge and Disciplinary Author ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR340; 1997(3)BomCR171; (1997)3BOMLR545; 1997(3)MhLj302
A.C. Agarwal, J. 1. By the present petition, Petitioner seeks to impugn an order of dismissal passed by the District Judge, Thane on 7th April, 1993. The said order is affirmed by the High Court in an Administrative Appeal on 28th March, 1994. Short facts leading to the filing of the petition are as under : 2. Petitioner joined service in the Judicial Department at Thane as a peon. The order of appointment is dated 31st October, 1990. The same is annexed at Exh. 'A' to the petition. The order shows that his appointment was made purely on temporary basis and his services are made liable to be terminated at any time without notice or without assigning any reason therefor. 3. During the period 2nd November, 1990 to 3rd June, 1991 the Petitioner worked as a peon in the Court of VIIIth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane. On 3rd June, 1991 he was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Palghar. While serving at Palghar, Petitioner started absentin...
Tag this Judgment!Savita Arun Kadu Vs. Arun Ranganath Kadu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: I(1999)DMC102
D.K. Trivedi, J.1. The appellant-original respondent wife has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bombay dated 26.4.1994 wherein the learned Judge has allowed the petition filed by the husband. As per the decree of the Family Court, the marriage solemnised between the appellant and respondent dated 22.1.1990 was stand dissolved and decree for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was passed and while granting the decree, the petitioner-husband was directed to pay Rs. 400/- per month as permanent maintenance to the respondent-wife and daughter.2. The main contention in the present appeal highlighted by the appellant is to the effect that no opportunity was given to the appellant-wife and the Family Court has proceeded with the petition filed by the husband ex parte and the Court has granted petition for divorce in favour of the appellant-husband. Accordingly the appellant's grievanc...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Yeshwant Narale Vs. Lakkawwa W/O Waman Kamble
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR97
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 16.4.1992 in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 1 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Cancel Heard both the sides.2. Few facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:The parties are husband and wife. The husband filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 14 of 1981 against the wife for restitution of conjugal rights but the said petition came to be dismissed on 9.8.1982. Then in the same proceedings, the wife filed an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. The husband contested that application on many grounds including the ground that the application is not maintainable when the main petition had already been disposed of. The learned trial Court framed issues including the issue of maintainability of the application. Then in view of a decision of this Court in Shakuntalabai v. Sahebrao, 1976 M.L.J. 512 : ILR 1978 ...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nabilal Mahiboob Nadaf and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR175
R.G. Vaidyanatha1. This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment dated 12th October, 1988 in M.A.C. Petition No. 13/86 on the file of District Judge & Ex-officio Member M.A.C.T., Solapur. Heard both sides.The Respondents Nos. 3 to 5, the original claimants, filed petition in the court below against the appellant and Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for compensation under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Claimants are the widow and children of deceased Shri Jangam. It is their case that the deceased was travelling in Truck No. MHD/5520 on 20th July, 1985. The truck was being driven by the first Respondent and it was owned by the second Respondent. It is alleged that due to rash and negligent driving of the Truck by the First Respondent, the truck met with an accident in a road between Akkalkot and Akkalkot railway station. As a result of accident, Shri Jangam sustained injuries and died. Hence, the claimant filed a Claim Petition in the Court below.2. The Resp...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Teleline Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT519Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported at Kandla Custom House a consignment declared to be LDPE reprocessed granules. The department had the goods tested by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai. The IIT reported the goods to be LDPE widespec. The importer having waived written notice, was heard by the Commissioner who passed orders enhancing the value of the goods declared from US$ 377 per MT to US$ 600 per MT confiscating the goods under Section 111(m) with option to redeem on payment of fine and imposing penalty. Hence this appeal.2. We have heard both sides. The Departmental Representative supports the order impugned in the appeal. For the appellant it is first contended that the goods are reprocessed granules and that whether or not they are widespec does not affect this fact. Clarification was sought by us to what the term "wide spec" denotes. The appellant relied upon a letter of Pears Plastics N.V. to Gemini Corporation, exporter.This says that there are significant points of di...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Kotak Mahendra Finance Limited Vs. M/S. Deve Paints Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Bom401; 1997(3)ALLMR678; 1997(4)BomCR229; (1997)3BOMLR233; 1997(3)MhLj326
1. The controversy involved in this group of four appeals in identical between the same parties and, therefore, all these appeals have been taken up together and are disposed of by common order. The appeals No. 85/97 and 86/97 have been preferred by original defendant M/s. Kotak Mahendra Finance Limited, while appeal Nos. 87-97 and 88/97 have been filed by original plaintiffs M/s. Deven Paints Limited.2. M/s. Deven Paints Limited, formely known as M/s. Garware paints limited (for short, lessee company) filed two suits before the city Civil Court at Mumabi against M/s. Kotak Mahendra Finance Limited (for short 'finance company') The facts averred by the lessee company in both the suits are identical. In suit No. 3113/96 the relief claimed by lessee company relates to vehicles bearing No. MH-01/A-6835. MH-01/ A-9297. MH-01/6750, and MH-01/B-7414 and is prayed by the lessee company that the finance company be restrained by way of an order and injunction from in any manner taking the posse...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Mahavirprasad JaIn Vs. Mrs. Vrishali W/O Sanjay Jain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR299; II(1997)DMC543
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. In this civil revision, the applicant has challenged the order passed by the trial Court below Exhibit 10, whereby the objection raised to the counterclaim on the ground of non-payment of Court-fees is turned down by the trial Court.2. Originally, the present applicant filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the present non-applicant. His case was that that he was married to the non-applicant on 21-5-1995 in Arya Samaj Temple, Amravati, and thereafter in one another temple. He claimed that the marriage was registered before the Registrar of Marriages, on 22-8-1995 and after the marriage, the non-applicant respondent stayed with him and had also conceived. They decided to terminate the pregnancy and accordingly it was terminated. He further pleaded that the non-applicant was taken away by her father as he had never approved of this alliance between the applicant and the non-applicant, and further reiterat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »