Mumbai Court September 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.
Mr. Maruti Shamrao Chavan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)313
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J. 1. This group of Revision Applications is filed by the applicant, who was common accused in all prosecutions, against the orders of conviction under sections 409 or 408 and 477 of I.PC and the sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, to suffer S.I. till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 45/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for one month. As the separate prosecutions were launched against the applicant, the applicant has filed separate Revision Applications but the point involved being identical in all these Revision Applications they are being disposed of by a common judgement.2. The short question which arises in all these Revision Applications is whether in appeal against the order of conviction the Sessions Court can consider only thequestion of sentence on the concession made by the advocate or is duty bound to consider the merits of the case and satisfy itself whether the conviction was rightly recorded or not by the trial Court. In my ...
State of Goa and Others Vs. Smt. Zarina Abdulai Karmali and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR203; 1998(4)BomCR136; (1998)1BOMLR702
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The present petition arises from the order passed bythe respondent No. 3, Administrative Tribunal, on 1-6-1995 whereby the Tribunal set aside the order dated 18-10-1988, passed by the Dy. Collector and S.D.O. Ponda. Sub-Division, Ponda.2. The controversy in the present petition relates to Survey Nos. 188/1 and 188/4 of Ponda, belonging to respondent No. 1 and classified as 'Cultivable (Bharad)' land in the Record of Rights of Ponda town prepared pursuant to the new survey. The property bearing Survey No. 188/1 admeasures 15,950 sq. metres and Survey No. 188/4 admeasures 1500 sq metres, in area, out of which 900 sq. metres and 200 sq. metres, respectively, are shown as 'uncultivable' area being occupied by the houses. On receipt of report from the Mamlatdar of Ponda, dated 29-7-1988. that on an area of 2640 sq. metres in the property bearing Survey No. 188/1 some construction work was going on, the Dy. Collector, Ponda issued notices dated 3-8-1988 to the ...
Abdul Rashid Habibulla Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)289
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. By judgment and order dated 19-2-1994 of the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 878 of 1991 the appellant accused was convicted lor an offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. In this appeal the appellant challenges the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence.2. The charge against the appellant was that on 7th July 1991 at about 1.30 a.m. in front of Mastan Chaw), Church Pakhadi Road No. 1, Sahar Village, Bombay 400 099, he assaulted Pandi Devar on his head with hockey stick and as a result of the head injury so voluntarily caused by the appellant, he intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Pandi Devar and thereby committed an offence of murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C.3. The prosecution case can be stated briefly as under :On Church Pakhadi road No. 1, Sahar Village, Bombay there were two chawls facing each other within a distance of about 6 to 7 ft....
Bharat Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Parijat Flat Owners Co-op. Hsg. Society ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR229; 1998(3)BomCR188
ORDERT. K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The defendant who were unsuccessful before the Bombay City Civil Court in Suit No. 1557 of 1971 are the appellants herein. Plaintiff-respondent also file cross-objections seeking certain modifications in the reliefs granted by the Court below. They challenge the judgment and decree passed by the Court below on 6th July, 1992 whereby the Court has issued certain declaration against them.2. This case had chequered history. It was originated by a suit filed by Shri Karsandas Mulji Kapadia and Bhogilal Manila! Amin both are residents at 95 'Parijat' Marine Drive, Bombay in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction on 14-10-1964 being Suit No. 495 of 1964. Subsequently, by order of the High Court dated 11 -2-1971, the said suit was transferred and filed in City Civil Court and re-numbered as Suit No. 1557/71. During the pendency ot the suit, defendant No. 2 expired and defendants 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) were impleaded...
Deepesh Mahesh Zaveri Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR12; (1998)1BOMLR547; 1998(2)MhLj634
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Shri Kolwal for the petitioner,Shri Agrawal for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Smt. Tahilramani for respondents Nos. 3& 4. The question of law which arises for our consideration in this petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution is, whether successive petitions can lie to the HighCourt under Article 226 seeking to challenge an crder of preventive detention afterthe first petition was dismissed on merits and where no fresh ground or evidence hasbecome available after the decision of the first petition and the ground alleged in thesecond petition was available to the detenu in the first petition ?2. This is a one page petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by theson of the detenu Mahesh Kantilal Zaveri, who was detained under the order dated5th October 1995 passed by the second respondent - detaining authority. Shri K.L.Verma, Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) to the Government of India, who was speciallyempowered under section 3...
Dattatraya Manglya Patil and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)300
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 21-2-1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 442/1987, convicting and sentencing them, in the manner stated hereinafter :---(i) Under section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to suffer R.I. for one year; and (ii) Under section 147 I.P.C. to one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-each, in default one month's R.I.It may be mentioned that along with the appellants, was tried one Sainath Patil but, he has been acquitted vide the impugned judgment. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as under :---The informant Eknath Bhoir P.W. 1 was the brother of the deceased Anant Bhoir. The two brothers used to live in a house in village Shirvane, Taluka and District Thane along with their sisters Shobha Bhoir and Aruna Bhoir and their mother Vitthabai, Gitabai Bhoir, the wife of Anant Bhoir used to also live ...
investment Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1997
Reported in: (1999)70ITD55(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1985-86 is directed against order of the CIT (Appeals)-I, Mumbai. In the first ground of appeal the assessee has challenged computation and adjustment of capital gains without properly considering the benefit claimed under section 54E of the Income-tax Act.2. The assessee in the return and during the course of assessment proceeding before the Assessing Officer claimed that the profit accruing to the assessee on the transfer of the long-term capital asset was invested in terms of section 54E and, therefore, the assessee first be allowed benefit of the above section and only then capital loss suffered by the assessee should be adjusted. There is no dispute on the amount on capital gain or capital loss suffered by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, however, refused to allow the benefit of section 54E as claimed. The learned revenue authorities held the view that net capital gain or loss has to be determined under section 45 of the ...
Mrs. Vaishali V. Chandekar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR227
ORDERAshok A. Desai, J.1. Petitioners in both these petitions are Assistant Teachers in the Private Secondary School. They have invoked our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution (or a relief of writ of mandamus directing the Management to make the payment of their salary as per the pay-scale prescribed by the Government.2. Mr. Pursnani and Mr. Palshikar the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-Management resisted the claim initially on the ground that the petitions are not maintainable as the writ could not be issued against a Private Management. Precise submission of the learned Counsel is that there is no public function involved. Even otherwise, the function is not of statutory character. The Management is neither a State nor an instrumentality of the State and as such the petition is untenable.3. The submission is erroneous. Having regard to the various provisions under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 a...
Smt. Chandarbai W/O Malhari Gaikwad and Another Vs. the State of Mahar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)BomCR572; 1998(2)MhLj724
ORDERN.P. Chapalgaonkar, J.1. This is a petition of two petitioners of the village panchayat Devapur in Degloor taluka of Nanded district. The office of the Sarpanch of the village panchayat, Devapur is. reserved for the category of other Backward Class (woman). An order to this effect has been passed by the Collector, Nanded under section 30 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. After the elections, respondent No. 6 Smt. Noor BAAG Jamanabee Maulana, a woman member of the village panchayat elected from the seat reserved for Other Backward Class was elected as the Sarpanch unopposed since she alone had filed a valid nomination. On 25th July 1996, a vote of No Confidence came to be passed per majority against the said Sarpanch and, therefore, the office of the Sarpanch became vacant under the provisions of section 35(3) of the said Act.2. Again the election of Sarpanch of the village panchayat was announced and on 7th September 1996, the respondent No. 6 Smt. Noor Baag Jamanabee Mau...
Sandhya Alias Supriya Kulkarni and Another Vs. the Union of India and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Bom228; 1998(1)ALLMR699; 1998(3)BomCR9; (1998)1BOMLR30; I(1999)DMC143; 1998(1)MhLj740
ORDERAshok A. Desai, J.1. Since petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were prevented from taking in adoption second time a female child (petitioner No. 1), in view of section 11(i) and (ii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned provisions'), they have questioned the validity thereof on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned provisions read thus:'In every adoption, the following conditions must be complied with -(i) if the adoption is of a son, the adoptive father or mother by whom theadoption is made must not have a Hindu son, son's son or son's son'sson (whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption),(ii) if the adoption is of a daughter, the adoptive father or mother by whom theadoption is made must not have a Hindu daughter or son's daughter(whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at thetime of adoption' Thus the impugned provisions injunct a person from having...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »