Mumbai Court June 1997 Judgments
Anil Kesarinath Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)181
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the detention of his cousin by name Sandeep P. Patil under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act. The impugned order of detention annexed as Annexure 'A' to the petition was issued by the respondent No. 2 on 2nd March 1996 under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. The said order was served on the detenu on 27th August 1996. The respondent No. 2, the Detaining Authority had also recorded the grounds of detention dated 2nd March 1996 which are annexed as Annexure 'B' to the petition and were served on the detenu along with the order of detention on 27th August 1996.2. The brief facts leading to the issue of the order of detention are as follows : On 27th September 1995 the Officers of the Air Intelligence Unit, Sahar International Airport, Mumbai intercepted the detenu in Module I in the arrival hall after he had cleared the customs. The detenu had arrived from Hongkong on Cathey Pacific flight. When the detenu was question...
Tag this Judgment!Shabir Tambawala Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)724; (1998)1BOMLR87; 1997CriLJ3465; 1997(3)MhLj169
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. By this revision the applicant has impugned the order dated 9-5-1991 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, dismissing his complaint on the ground that no sanction was taken by him before filing the complaint against respondent No. 2.2. A perusal of the complaint filed by the applicant shows that he was having two telephone connections in the premises of his company known as Sizer Metals Corporation, situate at 15-17, Ycob Street, Mohammad Manzil, near J.J. Hospital, Bombay, within the jurisdiction of Dongri Police Station. On 12-12-1990 he suspected that his telephone was being illegally used for S.T.D. calls with the connivance of M.T.N.L. staff. Consequently he went to lodge a complaint with the Vigilance Cell of M.T.N.L. and on their suggestion at about 2.30 p.m. the same day went to Dongri Police Station to lodge a complaint. At that time respondent No. 2 was Station House Officer at the said police station. When...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Amar Dye-chem Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT262Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondents are manufacturing S.O. Dyes falling under old Tariff Item 14 of the Central Excise Tariff. They claimed exemption under Notification 103/61 which allows set-off of duty paid on the imported intermediates used in the manufacture of S.O. Dyes.2. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner held that they were not eligible for the exemption and the issue was finally settled by an order dated 6-2-1987 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai, wherein he held that the respondents will be eligible for the exemption, if otherwise admissible. Thereafter, the Asstt. Commissioner passed an order on 3-1-1991 in which he held that credit of duty in balance cannot be carried forward and hence denied the respondents permission to transfer the balance of credit of Rs. 20,88,694.47 accumulated in terms of Notification 103/61 as inadmissible. The Asstt.Commissioner held that when once the notification is rescinded which was with effect from 15-10-1984, whatever credit in balance...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Vishwasrao Ghatge Vs. State Through Department of Urban Develop ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR169; 1998(5)BomCR420; 1997(3)MhLj643
ORDERA.P. Shah, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 raises a short but interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of section 56(4) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act ('Act' for short). Briefly, the circumstances of the case are that the petitioner was working in the transport undertaking of the Pune Municipal Corporation, as Chief Engineer. He was supposed to look after the maintenance, repairs and preventive maintenance of buses of the Corporation. On 20th April, 1982 the petitioner was served with a memorandum alleging therein that buses are not properly sent on road as per required schedule and a number of buses are breaking down on the road as a result of which inconvenience is being caused to the commuters besides financial loss to the Corporation. It was alleged that the over-all functioning of the petitioner's department was not satisfactory. The petitioner was told to improve the functioning of the workshop. He was further told that improvement...
Tag this Judgment!Chitralekha Shibu Kunju Vs. Shri Shibu Kunju
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR710; II(1998)DMC454
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. Petition for restitution of Conjugal rights filed by wife, was dismissed by the Family Court at Bandra by judgment dated 6th March, 1995 in Family Court petition No. A-995/90 and the wife filed this appeal, challenging the judgment. This petition is obviously filed under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The lower Court mainly based its judgment on the facts that marriage not being under the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore section 9 of that Act cannot be invoked by the petitioner-appellant. It found that the marriage in question will not come under Hindu Marriage. The lower Court has found that the petitioner to be a Hindu and respondent-husband be a Christian. Though petitioner claims that the marriage was conducted following the rites and practice of the Hindu marriage; it cannot be treated as a Hindu marriage for the purpose of Hindu Marriage Act. The lower Court has heavily held upon section 2 and section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which c...
Tag this Judgment!A. Chinnaswami Vs. M/S. Bilakchand Gyanchand Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)748; 1998(3)BomCR120
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith.2. These two applications are between the same parties and raise common points for consideration. Hence, those are being disposed of by common judgment.2A. The present respondent has filed two complaints against the present petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First class, Chopada, for offence punishable under section 138 r/w 142 of the Indian Negotiable Instruments Act being S.C.C. Nos. 155/95 and 156/95.3. The Summary Criminal Case No. 155/95 is filed in respect of four cheques of Rs. 1,00,000/- each issued on 17-6-1994; 22-6-1994; 27-6-1994 and 5-7-994. The complaint has contended that the accused had purchased cotton bales from the complainant on credit and the cheques were issued towards the consideration of the cotton bales sold. The complainant presented the cheques in the State Bank of India, Chopada. However, on 14-12-1994, he received information from the Bank that cheques were dishonoured. The complainant then sent ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Malini S. Kale and Others Vs. Smt. Kamlabai S. Shirodkar and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3455
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J. 1. By means of this revision application, the applicants assail the judgment and order dated 7-3-1991, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Criminal Revision Application No. 77 of 1990, whereby the order dated 3-1-1990 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Bombay, discharging them for an offence under section 420, r/w. 114 I.P.C., has been reversed. 2. The present revision application, arises out of a complaint dated 15-4-1988 filed by the respondent No. 1 for an offence under section 420 I.P.C. r/w 114 I.P.C., against the applicants. In short, case of the respondent No. 1 is that she was landlady of a building called 'Matru Smruti' situated at 26, Vincent Square Street, No. 2, Dadar, Bombay-14. On or about January, 1979, the applicant No. 1- Smt Malini Kale approached her for giving her and the applicant Nos. 2 and 3, who were her husband and son respectively, some accommodation in the building. Initially, she did not ac...
Tag this Judgment!Rialto Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR397
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J 1. Rialto Co-operative Housing Society Limited, the petitioner herein, seeks to impugn the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Asstt. Assessor & Collector, 'D' Ward, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay on 7-12-1994 to the extent the said authority has held that the land under construction cannot be treated as vacant plot of land.2. The said question arises in the facts narrated briefly hereunder.3. The petitioner is a registered co-operative housing society which owns a plotof land currently bearing Ward No. D-3310(1), 3309(1) and 3310(1-A). According tothe petitioner society, these three ward numbers constitute a single holding which hasbeen bifurcated by the respondents for their own purpose. The entire plot admeasuresapproximately 2334 sq. yds. (1951.50 sq. metres). It comprised of a main building ofground and three upper floors together with an outhouse and three garages. In orabout 1986-87, the main building was demolished though the outhouse...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Parvatibai Trimbak Deshpande Since Deceased by Her Heirs and Lega ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR306; 1998(2)BomCR39; 1998(1)MhLj360
ORDERV.R. Datar, J.1. The landlady Parvatibai has filed this writ petition challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune (herein after referred to as the Tribunal) dated 12th April 1982 in Revision Application No. M.RT.P./VIII.9/1979 (TNC.B.232/79) thereby upsetting the decisions of Tahsildar in Tenancy Case No. WS 615 and that of Leave Reserve Deputy Collector, Pune in Tenancy Appeal No. 8 of 1977 which was passed in her favour. The petitioner Parvatibai died during the pendency of this petition and her legal representatives have come on record and have continued this petition; so also respondent, Vilasrao Bajirao Patil died during the pendency of this petition and his legal representatives are brought on record.2. The necessary facts to understand the point in controversy are as follows:The suit land Survey No. 704/2 admeasuring 18 acres and 9 gunthas from village Bawda, Taluka Pandharpur, District Sholapur originally belonged to one, Namdeo Sagaji Mali. Parvatib...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Ganpat Dalvi Vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ848Bom
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The order dated June 22, 1994 passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition filed at the instance of the petitioner. By the said order dated June 2, 1994 the appellate authority set aside the order passed by the Fifth Labour Court on the application under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 made by the petitioner. The appellate authority held that the petitioner is not entitled to difference of gratuity amount and is only entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 10,044/-from January 17, 1982 to October 27, 1990. 2. The petitioner Shri Ramchandra Ganpat Dalvi (for short 'employee') made an application under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'Act of 1972') against the respondent M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. (for short 'employer'). The case of the employee was that he was working with the employer in Winding Department since Februa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »