Mumbai Court October 1998 Judgments

Smt. Rekha Kamlesh Shah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999CriLJ1036

Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Having regard the learned Counsel for the parties in this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner who is the wife of the detenu Kamlesh Nayalchand Shah, we are implicitly satisfied that the continued detention of the detenu in furtherance of the detention order dated 14-10-1997 passed by the second respondent Mr. Somnath Pal, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, detaining him under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, is vitiated in law because, the detenu has received no communication till dale from the respondents about the fate of his representation dated 2-3-1998.2. It is not disputed by the counsel for the parties that:(a) the detenu preferred a representation dated 2-3-1998, before the Central Advisory Board and the same was rejected by the Central Government on 15-4-1998; and(b) in vi...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Kumar Texturisers and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1999Bom118; 1999(1)BomCR755

ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit.2. Respondents waive service. By consent, heard forthwith.3. By the present petition, the petitioners have sought a declaration that no disputes exist between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 arising out of the Fire Policy No. 24373/94 issued by the petitioners in favour of respondent No. 1 on account of State Bank of India. Another declaration is also prayed for as well as a prayer for injunction to restrain respondent No. 2 to proceed with the Arbitration proceedings.It is the case of the petitioners that though there is an arbitration clause viz. Clause No. 11 in the agreement between the parties, the petitioners have fully satisfied the claim of the respondent No. 1 and as such there is no arbitral dispute which could have been referred to arbitration. In other words what is contended is that, as no disputes exist respondent No. 1 could not have invoked clause 13 of the Agreement and as such the declaration as prayed for.The question that has to be ...

Laxman Kisan Mundhe and Others Vs. the Conservator of Forest, Thane an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR849; 1999CriLJ553

ORDERT.K. Chandra Shekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of Truck No. MTT-3920. He purchased the truck on 8-2-1991 and handed over the truck along with the power of attorney for plying the same for consideration of rent to one Chandler Hari Datar. Since said Chander Datar neglected to pay the rent he himself took the truck and started soil transport work at Dahisar Check Naka. His working route was Dahisar Check Naka to Borivali Gorai Khadi. He had engaged the services of one driver called Ramesh Jivane who is staying in Dahisar. The petitioner was staying in Mumbra. Therefore he instructed the driver to park the same in Dahisar Check Naka where he usually ply the truck. On 9-4-1991 he came to know that his truck was detained by the forest officer in connection with some offence allegedly committed by his driver. It was revealed further on enquiry that on 5-4-1991 at about 3.30 a.m. the truck was proceeding from Parol to Shivsad it was inspected at Mandvi Check Naka, and found ...

Shri Mayur Chandulal Contractor, Bombay and others Vs. Mr. Hercules D' ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR750; 1999BomCR(Cri)750; 1999CriLJ554; 1999(1)MhLj377

ORDERT.K. Chandra Shekhara Das, J.1. This matter arises out of the issue of process by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivli, Bombay in Case No. 58/S/91 filed by the first respondent against the petitioners. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners have committed offences under sections 386, 451, 352, 419, 506(II) read with section 34 of the I.P.C. For the purpose of the case I do not think it is necessary to go into the every details contained in the complaint. Along with the complaint the names of 10 witnesses were shown and about 8 items of documents were also produced. The complaint was filed on 5-2-1990 and it was posted for verification on 6-3-1990. It appears that on 6-3-1990 verification was not done. On 15-5-1990 verification was done. But it was stopped abruptly, and it was adjourned to 5-6-1990 for want of time. In the verification he stated that he made a complaint in Borivli Police Station as per Exh. D a zerox copy of which is produced. On 2-2-1...

Smt. Zarina Nafees Hyder Rizvi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999CriLJ434

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the mother of the detenu Sayed Anees Hyder Rizvi @ Anees Hyder AH, seeks to impugn the detention order dated 4-12-1997 passed by the 2nd respondent Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention), Mantralaya, Mumbai, detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974), hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act.2. The detention order dated 4-12-1997 along with the grounds of detention bearing the same date was served on the detenu on 7-2-1998.3. The prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance of the detention order as contained in the grounds of detention, in brief, are as under :-On 7-4-1997, the Security Officers posted at the departure No. 10 of Sahar International Airport, Mumbai, were clearing passengers af...

Laxman Kisan Mundhe Vs. the Conservator of Forest and 2 ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR787

T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of Truck No. MTT. 3920. He purchased the truck on 8.2.1991 and handed over the truck along with the Power of Attorney for plying the same for consideration of rent to one Chander Hari Datar. Since said Chander Datar neglected to pay the rent he himself took the truck and started oil transport work at Dahisar Check Naka. His working route was Dahisar Check Naka to Borivali Gorai Khadi. He had engaged the services of one driver called Ramesh Jivane who is staying in Dahisar. The petitioner was staying in Mumbra. Therefore he instructed the driver to park the same in Dahisar Check Naka where he usually plays the truck. On 9.4. 1991 he came to know that his truck was detained by the Forest Officer in connection with some offence allegedly committed by his driver. It was revealed further on enquiry that on 5.4.1991 at about 3.30 a. in. the truck was proceeding from Parol to Shivsad it was inspected at Mandvi Check Naka, and found ca...

Shaikh Sajan Jivanbhai Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR630

T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The appellant impugned in this appeal, the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Thane dated 28th April, 1988. In the impugned Judgment, the appellant was found to be guilty under Section 5 and Section 23(1)(a) of the Petroleum Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer further S.I. for two months. He was also found to be guilty under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) under the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further R.I. for three months. The substantive sentence are directed to run concurrently.2. According to the prosecution, the appellant is the driver of tanker lorry No. MWN 1437 which belongs to M/s. R.G. Chandak and Company who are the authorised wholesale dealer in Kerosene. The appellant was employed by them.3. On 29.1.1985 at 10.30 a.m. or 11.00 a.m. the appellant was entrusted ...

income-tax Officer Vs. Anilkumar Rudra

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 3rd September, 1990, for the asst. yr. 1983-84. The ground taken reads as follows : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 being profit in lieu of salary under s. 17(3) holding that there is no employer-employee relationship." 2. The appellant was an employee of M/s Vulcan-Laval Ltd., which was a FERA company and manufactures industrial machineries for various applications like drilling rods, mining equipment, etc. The appellant was with this company for about 27 years, from 1954 to 1981. He was an engineer and a geologist and when he retired on 22nd September, 1981, he was the head of mining and drilling division. During his service with the company he was sent abroad many times for getting trained with the parent company, i.e. M/s Alfa Laval of West Germany. He retired on superannuation on 22nd September, 1981, and the employer comp...

Shri Sherkhan @ Sheru Kadar Khan Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR49

N. Arumugham, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order of detention passed by Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, the first respondent by virtue of Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers Drug-offenders Act, 1981 as amended in 1996 as well as Section 8 of the said Act and to quash the same. The impugned order as well as the grounds of detention was served contemporaneously upon the detenu on 4.12.1997 which has been referred in Annexure A and B respectively of the petition.2. The detention order above referred has been passed for the following prejudicial activities of the detenu:Ganpat Vasant Kharat aged 19 years is resident of Saibaba nagar. Behind Himalaya Hotel, 90 Feet Road, Dharavi, Bombay. On 4.5.1997, night at 23.30 hours after playing carrom at social nagar, he was returning to his house along Macchi galli, 90 Feet Road, Dharavi. A...

Shri Nhanu Ladu Pednekar Vs. Shri Madhusudan Krishnaji and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR168

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Undisputedly, the appellant had not filed any written statement as such in reply to the summons served upon him. No doubt, appellant had sent a letter dated 29th April, 1981 addressed to the Judge at Mapusa before whom the said suit was pending. However, even the contents of the letter nowhere disclose the necessary requirements of the ingredients of the plea of tenancy so as to hold that there was any plea of tenancy as such by the appellant before the Trial Court. Considering the law in this regard as already laid down in the matter of Pandu Dhondi Yerudkar and anr. v. Ananda Krishna Patil, reported in : AIR1975Bom52 , the question of framing of tenancy does not arise unless the party pleads necessary ingredients of tenancy in the pleadings. As regards the nature of the land, admittedly, the appellant himself had stated in the letter that the land was a barren land. Once it is clear that' the appellant had not filed any written statement in the suit, the que...