Mumbai Court December 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.
Manoj Jaswantrai Sheth Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR392; 1999BomCR(Cri)392; (1999)2BOMLR277; 1999(1)MhLj679
ORDERG. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Shirish Gupte with Mr. Prakash Naik and Shri Vijay Garg for the petitioner and Mr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Additional Solicitor General of India, with Mr. H.V. Mehta for the respondent No. 1 and learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 2. 2. This petition is filed by original accused No. 5 against the order of Special Judge Mrs. R.S. Dalvi rejecting his application for discharge. Before appreciating respective arguments it is necessary to quote certain facts of the prosecution case. 3. According to prosecution, accused S.D. Patil was working as a Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Deonar Branch, Bombay during relevant period and he entered into criminal conspiracy with Ompratap Singh, the proprietor of M/s. Delhi Oil Emporium, M/s. Dwarkadhish Commodities and M/s. Godavari Films with the help of his wife Smt. Madhu Pratap Singh and one Vikaram Singh and present accused M.J. Sheth to the common object of cheating and defrauding the Bank of Maharashtra. Modus ope...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Lalit S. Nagpal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR487; 1999(1)MhLj915
ORDERD. G. Deshpande, J.1. All these applications are filed by the State and they involve a common question of law. I have heard the learned A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra and Mr. H.A. Solkar for the respondent in some of these petitions.2. The question is whether the Special Judge appointed under the Essential Commodities Act, has powers to pass interim orders in respect of release of property involved in the commission of offences under the Essential Commodities Act.3. To appreciate this question, facts of CRA No. 123 of 1996 are reproduced:On 12-3-1996, the CB Control, CID, Mumbai received some definite information that the respondents along with others is illegally carrying out mixing of Naphtha with MTO and Peanten i.e. petroleum products and sell the said adulterated mixture as petrol in India at various places. One of such consignment of Naphtha was to be transported in the night between 12-3-1996 and 13-3-1996. Therefore, a close watch was kept on the tankers which were to...
Venus Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC295
1. These two applications are for early hearing. With the consent of the parties appeals were taken up.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants placed orders on foreign sellers for the supply of certain electronic games/toys. The goods were supplied and bills of entry were filed. The question was whether the goods could be cleared without special import licence or not. It was found that it required licence. The only question that has been raised before me is whether the impugned orders are wrong when the orders do not mention which Sub-section of Section 112 is attracted.The learned Counsel, Shri Jerry Lewis, invited my attention to the judgment of the Tribunal in Balvir Singh v. Collector of Customs - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 64 where in identical circumstances with that of the instant case the Tribunal has held, following the judgment of the Madras High Court in B. Lakshmi Chand v. Govt. of India - 1983 (12) E.L.T. 322 that failure to indicate the particular Sub-section to Section 1...
Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR390; 1999(2)BomCR167; (1999)1BOMLR888; 1999(1)MhLj905
ORDERDr. B.P Saraf, J.1. This is a petition under sub-section (6) of section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ('Act') for appointment of arbitrators to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of contract agreement dated 10th May 1991 for construction of major bridges.2. The material facts, briefly stated, are as follows:Under contract dated 10th May 1991 between the petitioner company and the respondent Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, the petitioner company was to undertake construction of the railway bridges set out therein. The case of the petitioners is that due to various circumstances, for which the respondent Corporation was solely responsible, there was delay in execution of the work. The further case of the petitioners is that several items of extra work were also carried out by the petitioners under instructions of the respondents. The petitioners claimed a sum of Rs. 38,17,795 on that account. This claim having not been set...
Naginbhai C. Patel Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR38; 1999(2)BomCR189; 1999(1)MhLj745
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. This is an application under sub-section (6) of section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') for appointment of an arbitrator to decide the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of contract dated 16th June, 1997 for construction of Drawing Hall Electrical Lab for Technical High School at Diu. The arbitration agreement is contained in Clause 25 of the contract which, reads as follows :'Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same whethe...
Shri Deepak G. Melwani Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR288; 1999BomCR(Cri)288; (1999)2BOMLR290
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. These two writ petitions arise out of the detention orders passed on 3-2-1997 against the petitioners by the second respondent under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The said orders came to be passed in the event of unearthing of a big haul of fraud on the provisions of F.E.R.A. and an amount of Rs. 469 crores have been siphoned out of the country in clandestine operations. In this Hawala racket, 14 persons were involved and they had conspired together in an organised manner and transacted the Hawala business whereby tried to weaken the Indian Foreign Exchange Reserves.2. It is stated in the grounds of detention that as per the reliable information received by the Enforcement Directorate, Bombay, it came to light that certain persons by name Dilip Doshi, Dinesh Bhuva, Harshad P. Mehta with the active assistance of the persons such as Yogesh Mehta, Deepak Melwani (Petition No. 254 of ...
Ganpat Bhikaji Bamne Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR381; 1999BomCR(Cri)381
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. Rule. By consent of both the parties heard forthwith. 2. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for the relief of certain directions to the second respondent to quash and set aside the detention of the petitioner in solitary confinement and directing the second respondent to release the petitioner from solitary confinement and transfer him to Nashik Central Prison on the ground that purely out of malice the petitioner was put in the solitary confinement in Aurangabad Central Prison. 3. Mr. R.V. Gaikawad, Senior Jailor, attached to Aurangabad Central Prison, Dist. Aurangabad has filed sworn return contending inter alia that the petitioner was admitted in the Aurangabad Central Prison as under trial prisoner on 10-9-1998 pursuant to the remand warrant issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in D.C.B. C.I.D. C.R. No. 3 of 97 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 341, 12...
Shri Augustine Diago Fernandes Vs. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Poli ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR382; 2000CriLJ1008
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. By filing this writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the detenu himself has challenged the order of detention passed by the 1st respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, on 24th April, 1998 in D.O. 74/PCB/BL/ Zone-III of 1998 dated 24th April, 1998 detaining the petitioner by virtue of sub-section (1) of section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of the Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 as amended upto date and that has been approved by the Government of Maharashtra, second respondent vide its Order No. DDS/1398/SPL/ 3(B) dated 16th March, 1998. By virtue of section 3 of the said Act or its alleged illegality and impropriety, both orders of detention shown at Exh. B, on the grounds of detention shown in Exh. C and the list of documents relied on by the Detaining Authority shown in Exh. A were all served on 4th May, 1998 itself simultaneously upon the...
Girmalla A. Patil Vs. Shivajirao Rupanar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR390; 1999BomCR(Cri)390
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. Rule. By consent of both the parties heard forthwith.2. The petitioner has came forward with the prayer seeking direction to expedite the investigation into the case registered as C.R. No. 85 of 1995 of Jath Police Station, District Sangali without any delay and direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take proper action, if the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has not carried out investigation in the said C.R. No. 85 of 1995 satisfactorily.3. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be that his premises were burgled out and all the materials kept therein has been stolen away by the culprits. He has lodged complaint with Jath Police Station who registered the same as C.R. No. 85 of 1995. However, since the investigation was being delayed and not carried out properly, according to the petitioner, he has came forward with this writ petition for the relief above referred.4. Shri A.L. Kadam, Police Sub Inspector attached to Jath Police Station, District Sangli on the direction ...
Kantilal Chunnilal Porwal Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR206
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Pande for the petitioner and Mr. Walawalkar for the BMC.2. The petition is filed for quashing the proceedings started by the BMC against the petitioner filed before the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Mazgaon, under Section 259(A) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (BMC Act) and committed an offence under Section 471 of the BMC Act.3. It was contended by Mr. Pande that these proceedings have been initiated by the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not carry out the repairs as per the BMC Notice dated 27.7.1995, Exhibit 'E' to the petition. However, according to Mr. Pande the petitioner-landlord who was paying repair cess to the MHADA through BMC and which was moving MHADA from 1991 for undertaking the repairs of his building was not in a position to and could not have carried out those repairs as per notice, Exhibit 'E' to the petition. Firstly, because it was for the MHADA to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »