Mumbai Court April 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.
Mx of Bombay Indian Inhabitant Vs. M/S. Zy and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Bom406; 1997(4)ALLMR223; 1997(3)BomCR354; (1997)2BOMLR504
ORDERTipnis,J.1. It is permissible of the State,under our Consitution,to condemn a person infected with HIV to virtual economic death before the must eventually meet his death due to the ailment is the question before us.The question is of great contemporary significance and importance.2. The petitioner was working as a casual labourer with respondent No. I Corporation, through a contractor in the year 1982.In 1984,the petitioner was interviewed for a vacancy against a regular post by the respondent-Corporation.However,the petitioner was not selected.In the year 1986,the petitioner was interviewed again by the Corporation and,thereafter,was employed as a casual labourer from 1986 till about 1994.The petitioner was required sign a register/muster and was issued a muster card.In the year 1990,the petitioner was directed to go for a medical examination.The petitioner submitted himself to medical examination conducted by one Dr.V.S.Kulkarni who is a panel Doctor for the respondent-Corporat...
Chistovan Vaz and Krishna M. Chari Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1997
Reported in: [2000]100CompCas16(Bom)
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a judgment in Special Civil Suit No. 20 of 1983 on the file of the Civil judge, Senior Division, at Bicholim, dated November 30, 1988. The first respondent herein, Indian Overseas Bank has filed the suit against four defendants. The first defendant is the principal borrower, who had borrowed an amount of Rs. 96,000 for the purchase of Mahindra mini bus on execution of hypothecation agreement on May 2, 1981. The said amount was to be repaid by 40 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month. The defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 stood guarantors for the repayment of the aforesaid loan. Defendant No. 4 has expired. Defendant No. 1 defaulted in the repayment. Presumably by virtue of the conditions of the hypothecation deed, the plaintiff-bank attached the vehicle and with the help of the police the said vehicle was detained from February 26, 1983, to July 15, 1983. Thereafter, the branch manager took possession of the said v...
Shri Chistovan Vaz and Another Vs. M/S. Indian Overseas Bank and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR829; 1998(2)BomCR522
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a judgment in Special Civil Suit No. 20/1983 on the file of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, at Bicholim dated 30-11-88. The first respondent herein, Indian Overseas Bank has filed the suit against four defendants. The first defendant is the principal borrower, who had borrowed an amount of Rs. 96,000/- for the purchase of Mahindra Mini Bus on execution of hypothecation agreement on 2-5-1981. The said amount was to be repaid by 40 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 stood guarantors for the repayment of the aforesaid loan. Defendant No. 4 has expired. Defendant No. 1 defaulted the repayment. Presumably by virtue of the conditions of the hypothecation deed, the plaintiff Bank attached the vehicle and with the help of the police the said vehicle was detained from 26-2-1983 to 15-7-1983. Thereafter, the Branch Manager took the possession of the said vehicle from the police ...
Shri S. Srinivas Rao Vs. Marmugao Port Trust Through Its Chairman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR196
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner is a head-draughtsman, working lor Engineering Civil Department of the respondent No. 1. His next promotion under the existing rules was the Assistant Engineer. While the petitioner was holding the post of estimator and Senior draughtsman Grade I, and as the incumbent holding the post of head draughtsman, was unqualified to be promoted to the post of Asst. Engineer and as he was getting stagnated and since many of the petitioner's colleagues who had joined even after him to the field section, had already superseded the petitioner, the petitioner represented by various representations from the year 1982 to 1990 to amend the rules and provide the petitioner avenue of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. In response to those representations, it is averred in the writ petition that by letter dated 23-1-1990, the Chairman of the respondent No. 1 assured the petitioner that he would be considered for the promotion as a direct recruit...
Arun Moreshwar Patankar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR562; 1997(4)BomCR473
V.P. Tipnis, J. 1. We have heard this petition for a considerable length of time. We have heard Shri Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Apte learned Additional Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.2. By this petition the petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside the selection and appointment of 5th respondent Shri Dravid and 6th respondent Shri Sakhalkar as Administrative Members of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Aurangabad and Nagpur Benches respectively. There are several other reliefs claimed in the petition. The only other relief which is relevent, is further direction to consider the petitioner for appointment as Administrative Member for the aforesaid posts. 3. Upon enquiry the petitioner signified his willingness to be considered for appointment as Administrative Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench and in fact he accordingly applied on 2nd July 1994 for the purpose. In a meeting...
Motilal Manrupji Solanki and ors. Vs. Ganeshmal Ramchandra Solanki
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR322
A.Y. Sakhare, J.1. Present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order dated 25th April, 1991 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge Sr. Divn. Thane in Spl. Darkhast No. 35 of 1988 (Exh. 1). By the said order, the Civil Judge. Sr. Division, Thane has dismissed the petitioner's application for sending papers to the Collector for effecting the partition, on the ground of limitation.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition are as under:-In a family dispute, sole arbitrator was appointed. On 16th May, 1958, the Sole Arbitrator declared an award. On 4th August, 1958 the decree was drawn in terms of the said award. On 18th November, 1958, the said decree was presented for registration and accordingly came to be registered. Para (d) of the decree relates to four pieces of agricultural lands situated at Mulund. The decree mentions that if the partition is permissible, the lands referred to in the said para should be partitioned...
Arun Digamber Varangaonkar Vs. M/S. Kharpe Gruth Udyog and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Bom299; 1997(4)BomCR494; (1997)2BOMLR630; 1997(2)MhLj773
ORDER1. The Defendant by this chamber summons pray for revocation of leave granted ex parte under Clause 12 of the Letters patent. 2. Arun Digamber Varangaonkar, the Plaintiff has filed the suit before this Court on original side against the Defendants praying therein that Defendants by themselves, there servants, agents, stockists and distributors be restrained by perpetual injunction from using the house-cum-trade mark being the device of a crude house-cum-roof top or any other mark which is deceptively similar to the trade mark of the Plaintiff being the device of a triangular roof top with chimney of the Plaintiff in relation to Defendants' masala product and spices preparation so as to pass off and / or likely to pass off and / or enable others to pass off the said preparation as and for the preparation of the Plaintiff bearing their trademark GHARKUL and device mark aforesaid. The Plaintiff also prays that Defendants be restrained by perpetual injunction from using the label or p...
Canara Bank Vs. M/S. Mettallica Industries Ltd. and Anothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR518a
ORDER1. Heard. 2. The Applicants who are 29 in number apply by way of this chamber summons for direction to the Plaintiff to implead them as Defendants. Canara Bank, the Plaintiff, has filed the suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 47,52,964.33, Rs. 48,70,672.77, Rupees 66,60,785.48, Rs. 12,31,095.09 and Rupees 6,01,154.50 particulars of which have been in the plaint along with further interest @ 23.75% p. a. compounded at quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit till payment and realisation together with cost against the Defendants viz. M/s. Mettalica Industries Limited, and, Shri, Hari Shankar Jalan. The claim of the Plaintiff bank is for recovery of aforesaid outstanding amount for the cash credit facility granted to the Defendants. 3. The Applicants' case in the chamber summons is that they are permanent workmen of the Defendant No. 1 company for last so many years. The defendant No. 1 company had been very irregular in making payment of wages to them. According to Applicants...
S. Krishnan Vs. U.V. Shahadadpuri and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR274(Bom)
ORDER UNDER SECTION 269UDNon-application of mind by the Appropriate AuthorityCatch Note:Pre-emptive purchase order of Appropriate Authority was passed after ignoring material evidence and/or brused aside the evidence on unsustainable ground--Allegation that there was significant undervaluation of subject property was, therefore, not justified--Thus, order passed under section 269UD was not sustainable in view of non-application of mind by the Appropriate Authority on relevant material and evidencesHeld:The entire exercise was completed within a period of 12 days from the issuance of the show-cause notice. The order of the appropriate authority mentions that the authority had personally visited the property on 5-1-1995, the date on which the show-cause notice was issued. A perusal of the files and record do not disclose any report of the site inspection. From the discussion by the appropriate authority in its order it is clear that the explanation given by the petitioner in respect of t...
Prakash S/O Barku Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR84; 1998(1)MhLj43
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard both the sides.2. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the notice dated 21-3-1997 issued by respondent No. 2- the Tahsildar, Parola, regarding no confidence motion against the petitioner.3. The petitioner is elected as Sarpanch of Group Gram Panchayat, Mohadi, Taluka Parola, District Jalgoan in 1992 and thereafter on 1-3-1996 a no confidence motion was moved against him which was defeated in the meeting held on 6-3-1996. Again some members sent a notice regarding no confidence to the respondent No. 2 the Tahasildar and the Tahasildar had fixed a meeting of the Gram Panchayat for the said purpose on 7-11-1996. By his letter dated 6-11-1996 the Tahasildar informed the concerned members that in view of the amended provisions of section 35(3-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 the motion was not entertainable and hence the meeting scheduled on 7-11-1996 was cancelled. A group of four members out of 7 m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »