Mumbai Court November 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.
Smt. Shailaja W/O Arunrao Nandurkar Vs. Deputy Director of Education a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR78; 1999(2)BomCR33; 1999(1)MhLj617
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J. 1. The petitioner who was working as a High School Teacher in Bharti Vidyalaya, Babulkheda Nagpur from 1-7-1974, continued to do so up to 5-12-1982 the date of de-recognition. As a result, question arose as to her absorption in any other school.2. On the strength of the discharge certificate (Appendix-7-Annex, I) her case had to be considered. So far as the salary is concerned, she was getting Rs, 540/- as salary in the pay scale of Rs. 365-15-500-20 Ext. 20-760/-.3. She came to be absorbed in Nagpur Madhyamik Vidyalaya, as per letter dtd. 7-3-83 (Annex, IV, page 15). It being a Madhyamik Vidyalaya, the aforesaid pay scale of Rs. 365 -760 not being available, she was absorbed in the Middle School in the pay scale of Rs. 290-10-390 -15-540/- w.e.f. 6-12-82 as per the order of the Education Officer.4. It has been categorically stated in the letter Annex, IV, page 15 that her last drawn pay as per discharged certificate is protected and she is getting that salary w.e....
Premlal S/O Kanhyalal Jaiswal Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR223
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner has challenged an order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on 21-1-1998, thereby declaring the petitioner as a Tout' under section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 and his licence as 'Petition Writer' has been cancelled under the provisions of the Civil Manual. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, has further directed that the petitioner shall be excluded from precincts of the Civil Court, Bhadgaon, or any other courts from Jalgaon district, except when he is summoned or required by any Court to appear on a particular date before it or with prior permission of the Court. 3. It appears that at the relevant time there were in all eight Advocates practicing before the Civil Court, Bhadgaon, dist. Jalgaon, who were residents of village Bhadgaon and out of these eight Advocates, ...
Kestorabai W/O Bhagwan Chaudhari and Others Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)BomCR34
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. Heard both the learned Advocates for the parties at length. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. A cry for gender justice is the subject matter of this civil revision application, which is filed by five female applicants against the State of Maharashtra. The said civil revision application is filed in the First Appeal Stamp No. 19880/97 wherein the Taxing Officer of this Court by his order dated 21-11-1997 refused to register the said first appeal as he found that no Court fees stamp was paid by the said applicants who are the petitioners in the civil revision application. One of the petitioners however, is a male member of the family i.e. the petitioner No. 2. Petitioners have impugned in the present C.R.A. the order passed by the Taxing Officer on 21-11-1997 directing the petitioners to pay the Court fees of Rs. 5,200/- on the claim of Rs. 74,876/-. The petitioners who are the female petitioners, are aggrieved by the said order of the Tax...
Smt. Sumati Naik Vs. Shri Dilip Fatarpekar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)BomCR597
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. The points for determination which arise in the present petition are:-- i) Whether the Rent Controller can proceed to hold an enquiry under section 21 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the said Act, unless the applicant landlord prima facie establishes the existence of the relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the applicant and the opponent.ii) Whether in case of failure on the part of the applicant landlord to establish prima facie such relationship, mere denial of title of the landlord ship of the applicant would justify eviction of the opponent under the said Act.2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the respondent No. 1 herein filed an application for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the father of the respondent No. 1 had leased out two rooms of the house bearing No. 23 situated in Ward No. 9 at Tisk, Ponda and that the petitioner ...
Mahesh Ramchandra Jadhav and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR535; 1999(5)BomCR113; (1999)1BOMLR634; 1999CriLJ2310; 2000(1)MhLj648
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Vashi for the petitioners and A.P.P. for the State. The Petition is for quashing the charge sheet filed against the petitioners under sections 270-273, 337 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of Medical shop known as Rabodi Medicals and retail salesman of milk powder known as Nestle Lactogen. Petitioner No. 2 is the wholesaler and distributor of products Nestle India Ltd.3. This charge sheet against the petitioners was filed on the basis of complaint of one Janardan Balkrishnan that on 2-8-1994 he purchased a tin of Lactogen Milk Powder for his daughter from the shop of petitioner No. 1 and when the milk was given to the daughter it was found that it contained glass pieces which injured and harmed her.4. Mr. Vashi for the petitioners in the background of the aforesaid facts which he further elaborated on the basis of chargesheet contended that the charge sheet was liable to be quashed on two grounds firstly, according to ...
C.K. Gupta and Another Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR330; 1999BomCR(Cri)330; 1999CriLJ2566; [1999(82)FLR488]; (1999)IILLJ457Bom; 1999(1)MhLj717
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is Director of the petitioner No. 2 which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act having registered office at Old Anjirwadi, Mazgaon, Bombay 400 009. Petitioner No. 2 company is having factory situated at village Manda, (Titwala), District Thane at the relevant time. The said company has since 7-11-1981 appointed a Manager namely Shri. K.A. Pawar for looking after day today affairs of the factory. Said Shri K.A. Pawar, was also a Manager within the meaning of section 2(n) of the Factories Act and his name was registered with the office of Registrar of the Factories under the provisions of the said Act. Respondent No. 3 filed complaint on 22-6-1983 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon Bombay bearing Case No. 635 of 1983. The said complaint thereafter was transferred to Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon being Case No. 90/ESIC/87 which is again transferred to Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazga...
M/S. Baroda Ferro Alloys and Industries Limited and Others Vs. M/S. Sp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR249; 1999BomCR(Cri)249; 1999CriLJ1820; 1999(2)MhLj220
ORDERD.G. Deshpahde, J.1. Heard Mr. Vashi for the petitioners and Mr. Jamdar for respondent No. 1 and learned A.P.P. for State/respondent No. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused for quashing the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which were initiated by respondent No. 1 on bouncing of cheques which were given by the petitioners towards returns of interoperate deposit of Rs. 25 lacs.2. It was contended by Mr. Vashi that the cheques were dishonoured as per Bank advice letter dated 4-8-1993. Thereafter complainant gave a notice dated 9-8-1993 about dishonoured of the cheques, but filed a complaint on 30-10-1993, and therefore, complaint was barred by limitation. He also contended that presenting the cheques at second time and giving notice thereafter on 15-9-1993 and calculating period of limitation from 15-9-1993 was contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in : 1998CriLJ4066 Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumai.3. On the ...
Rahul Pundalik Birahade and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR148
ORDERA. D. Mane, J.1. These two appeals arise out of an order of conviction and sentence passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on 9thAugust, 1995, in Sessions Case No. 71/1992, against the appellants for offence punishable under section 376(2)(f) & (g) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. One thousand on cash count in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year with a direction that both the sentences to run concurrently.2. It may be stated that both these appellants are represented through two different advocates and, therefore, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.3. The appellants were tried for the aforesaid offence on an allegation that on April 11, 1991 at about 11.00 p.m., they lifted one Shobha, aged below 12 years and took her in open space surrounded by Besarami shrubs away from the main road and committed sexual intercourse one after the a...
Yashwant Nanubhai Pingle Vs. the State of Maharashtra (Cbi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR876; 1999CriLJ1270
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nalawade, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Mehta, Advocate for C.B.I. and A.P.P. for the State. This is an appeal by the accused, who was Customs Officer, against his conviction by Special Judge (R.S. Dalvi) under section 5(1)(d) punishable under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by which he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year on each counts. The prosecution case in brief was that the present accused, who was the Customs Officer, had demanded Rs. 600/- as illegal gratification from one Ramdev Prasad, who was working at Gate Way of India as a photographer, for allowing him and his five colleagues to carry on their business of photography at Gate Way of India and for giving them licence in that regard.2. As per the prosecution case, this demand was made from Ramdev Prasad by the present accused as well as the acquitted accused Mohammed Noor Khan, and Ramdev Prasad filed a complaint against both of them on 16-1-1986. Accordingly, tr...
Ashabai Ganeshrao Khote and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR113; 2000BomCR(Cri)113; 1999(2)MhLj36
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. Heard Shri S.K. Barlota, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri P.B. Varale, learned A.P.P. for respondent-State.2. The appellants are convicted in Special Case No. 13/95 by the Special Judge, Beed, on 9-5-1997 for offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) read with section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred in short as the 'Act') and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one month.3. The prosecution case is as follows:----Ankush Dasharath Karke had gone to Yamai temple form his village Jategaon with his wife, parents and children to offer a saree and tube light to the deity because his mother had vowed that she would offer saree and tube light to the deity on the son Ankush getting employment. The day was 16-1-1995 an annual fair day at Yamai temple. Ashabai, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »