Mumbai Court October 1998 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.
Ramakant Khanderia and ors. Vs. Aspi Market, Director of Eastern Store ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR627
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition arises out of a complaint made by the 1st respondent alleging that the offence under Section 420 read with Section 114 of IPC was committed by the petitioners.2. I have gone through the complaint filed by the 1st respondent before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Bombay in C.C. No. 2251/8 of 1990. On examination of the complaint, I do not find that any offence under Section 420 is disclosed. What has been disclosed is that a breach of promise made by the petitioners.3. The petitioners placed orders on 1st respondent for supply of certain goods and after supplying the goods, the petitioners did not make the payment. On close reading of the complaint, it is revealed that there is clear breach of promise, but all breaches of promise will not amount to offence of cheating. The dividing line between the breach of promise and cheating is very thin. Unless it is disclosed from the averments of the complaint that ...
Ramakant Khander and ors. Vs. Aspi Markar, Director of Estern Stores a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR781
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition arises out of a complaint made by the 1st respondent alleging that the offence under Section 420 read with Section 114 of I.P.C. was committed by the petitioners.2. I have gone through the complaint filed by the 1st respondent before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Bombay in C. C. No. 2251/8 of 1990. On examination of the complaint, I do not find that any offence under Section 420 is disclosed. What has been disclosed is that a breach of promise made by the petitioners.3. The petitioners placed orders on 1st respondent for supply of certain goods and after supplying the goods, the petitioners didn't make the payment. On close reading of the complaint, it is revealed that there is clear breach of promise, but all breaches of promise will not amount to offence of cheating. The dividing line between the breach of promise and cheating is very thin. Unless it is disclosed from the averments of the complaint th...
Narayan Madhavji Jat Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR596
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is a friend of the detenu Arvind Vyas, seeks to challenge the detention order dated 15.7.1996 passed by the 2nd respondent Smt. Neela Satyanarayana, the Detaining Authority, detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act, and the declaration dated 5.9.1997, issued by the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, extending the period of detention of the detenu from one year to two years.2. The detention order dated 15.7.1996 along with the grounds of detention bearing the said date, was served on the detenu on 3.8.1997.3. Since a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the grounds of detention necessitating the issuance of the imp...
Mohan Ramchandra Powar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR817
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The Petitioner approaches this Court by way of this writ petition for challenging the order passed by the District Sessions Judge, Kolhapur dated 4th May, 1991 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner being Regular Appeal No. 270 of 1991, as time barred.2. The short facts in this case is that the petitioner on 4th June, 1987 was arrested under Sections 4 and 5 of Prevention of Gambling Act and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 1 Kolhapur in Cri. Case No. 7659 of 1988. Before the Magistrate, the petitioner pleaded guilty. At the time of arrest, he was found to be in possession of Rs. 15/-. On pleading guilty, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for fine of Rs. 200/- and imprison till the rising of the Court. The commission of offence is as early as June, 1987. After that it appears that the petitioner applied for the job and he was appointed as labour in the Government Printing Press, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur as a 'Ma...
Smt. Narmadan D. Borkar and ors. Vs. Shri Surendra Narcinva Bondre and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR369
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This Revision Application arises from Order dated 23rd October, 1997 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 98 of 1973 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao. By the impugned Order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application for amendment filed by the Petitioners.2. By an application dated 5th March, 1997, the Petitioners, who are the Defendants in the said civil suit, sought to amend the written statement by introducing the following pleadings:With still further reference to the plaint as a whole, these defendants claim mundkarship in respect of the suit premises in terms of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 as defined under Clause 'p' of Section 2 of the said Act.The defendants further submit that the suit is liable to be transferred to the Mamlatdar of Selected in terms of Section 13 of the said Act.3. In the original pleadings in the written statement which was filed sometime in July, 1973, the Petitioners/Defendants ha...
Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT171Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant planned to set up a thermal electricity generating station at Trombay and for this purpose invited bid from some suppliers for equipments required. Bid was invited for supply of manually and electrically operated steam traps and metallic expansion joints and start up and essential spares required for these. The appellant found the bid made by Hopkinsons Ltd., U.K. to be favourable but found that this bid did not include the supply of the spares in question. The appellant was not satisfied by the assurance given by the proposed supplier that they were not required and insisted on their supply.Accordingly, the supplier agreed to supply them within the price already quoted, 1,470,836. The appellant proposed to avail of the benefit of the concessional rate of the 9801 relating to project import for the goods required for the power station and accordingly obtained import licence and a letter from the sponsoring authority, Central Electricity Authority. Import licence and t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›