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.
Hindustan Antibiotics Limited and Others Vs. M/S. Kirloskar Investment ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD(Cri)404; 1999(5)BomCR264; 1999BomCR(Cri)264; (1999)1BOMLR899; 1999(2)MhLj609
ORDERP.I. Rebello, J.1. Writ petition came to be dismissed on 26-11-1998. A Review petition has been filed against the said dismissal. Assuming that a Review in the Criminal Writ Petition is maintainable the point sought to be contested by the Review applicant is being dealt with and decided in view of the arguments advanced.2. The Review applicant was the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 39/98. The said Writ Petition was directed against the issuance of process under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in a case where proceedings, including a complaint are initiated against a company in respect of which proceedings are registered under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1993 hereinafter referred to as S.I.C.A., before the Board or before the Appellate Authority no criminal complaint can be filed without taking permission of the Board or Appellate Authority. It is contended that in ...
Babgonda Bhujgonda Patil Vs. Avinash Gunadhar Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR267; 1999BomCR(Cri)267; II(1999)DMC378; 1999(2)MhLj559
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Ingale for the petitioner, Mr. Pradhan for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and learned A.P.P. for the State/respondent. This revision is filed by father of deceased Suvarna alias Jyoti against order of acquittal passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur (B.T. Harwade) acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences under section 498-A, 304-B, 306 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that deceased Suvarna was married to accused No. 1 on 3-6-1993, that she delivered a male child on 2-6-1994 and that thereafter she resided at her father's house for 6-7 months, that in January she returned back to her husband's house and committed suicide by hanging her in her house. On the complaint lodged by present petitioner, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were prosecuted for the aforesaid offences, wherein prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses and also relied upon suicide note written by deceased Suvarna.3. Counsel ...
Sim Sim Trading Company and Another Vs. Cream Creation and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR437; 1999CriLJ3769; 1999(2)MhLj184
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J:1. Heard, Mr. Gupte for the petitioner and Mr. Desaifor the respondent No. 1. 2. Petitioner was the complainant before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade. Mumbai in a complaint filed under section 78 and 79 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and under section 420 and 486 of the Indian Penal Code against some unknown persons. In that complaint, concerned Magistrate passed an order on 6-2-1998 forwarding the complaint to Senior P.I. Crime Branch Control, Mumbai, for investigation under section 202 of Cr.P.C. and for submitting his report. While making the investigation, the Crime Branch, carried out search of the premises of the respondent No. 1 and seized the property worth Rs. 20,00,000/-. An application came to be filed thereafter by one Raju Padwal for return of the property and the Metropolitan Magistrate allowed that application ordering the said applicant to execute a bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- and furnish an Indemnity Bond of Rs. 15,00,000...
Sambhaji Wamanrao Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR495; [1999(81)FLR884]; (1999)IIILLJ1081Bom
Kapadia, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge Judgment and Order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Review Application No. 65 of 1997 in Transfer Application No. 1659 of 1991 (Writ Petition No. 1131 of 1990).2. The facts giving rise to this Writ Petition, briefly, are as follows: -3. Petitioner was working as Naik Tahasildar in Slum (II) Thane. He was charged with an offence of accepting an illegal bribe of an amount of Rs. 1200/- from one Shri Belose. The case was numbered as Special Case No. 20 of 1982 in the Court of Special Judge at Thane. The said Special Case came to be disposed of vide Judgment dated September 30, 1986. The petitioner stood acquitted of the charges levelled against the petitioner. On June 8, 1988 the petitioner applied for regulating his period of suspension. He also applied for continuity of service. On May 30, 1989, the petitioner received a Notice from Respondent No. 2, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why sus...
Mahamadrafik Akbar Bagwan Vs. Nurbegam Mahamadrafik Bagwan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR812
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the order dated 5th November, 1990 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Revision Application No. 204 of 1989. By the said judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kagal, dated 6th October, 1989 below Exh. 6 in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 5 of 1989.2. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 were married. The respondent No. 2 is the child from the said marriage. Divorce has been effected between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 on 8th January, 1985. The respondent No. 1 on behalf of herself and her minor daughter had applied under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance by application dated 25th September, 1986 The said application came to be allowed by order dated 2nd June, 1986, Revision Application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 30th November, 1989.As the petitioner herein failed to comply wi...
Nishantraj Nahata and ors. Vs. I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Finance and Investm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR815
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Marwadi for the petitioners and Mr. Vashi for the respondents.2. Both the applications involve common question and hence they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. The applications have been filed by the Directors of the accused Company for quashing process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Complaint under Section 138 were filed by the respondents before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in Criminal Application No. 3121 of 1997 and before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court, Girgaon, Bombay in Criminal Application No. 3122 of 1997. After recording the verification statements and perusing the documents, process was ordered to be issued by the Magistrate, which is challenged in these applications.3. It was contended by Mr. Marvadi that the petitioners Nishantraj Nahata and M.G. Pradhan in Application No. 3121 of 1997 and also the five petitioners in application No. 3122 of 1997 ...
Vishwajeet R. Sambhus and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR71
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocates for the petitioners and the respondent No. 1.2. This Revision is filed against the Order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court Ballard Pier, Mumbai, dated 12.3.1997 rejecting the application of the accused - petitioners for discharge. I heard advocate for the petitioners and the APP at length. Before appreciating their respective contentions, it is necessary to give facts of the case in brief. The petitioners are the employees of M/s. Videocon International Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') and FIR came to be lodged against these petitioners and two employees of the Bombay Port Trust (BPT) namely, Mr. R.N. Ninave and Mr. S.S. Lakhwani. The offences under Sections 420, 379, 511 read with 34 of the IPC were registered against the accused. In short the allegations in the FIR are that the company used to import certain articles and goods for their manufacturing unit at Mumbai. In respect of these imported goods they were required to ...
Shashikant Rajaram Dandekar and ors. Vs. Smt. Vijaya Shripad Kale and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR129
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Impugned order is dated 29.3.1990. The accused in the said proceedings had filed an application that civil proceedings are pending and, therefore, the present case be stayed. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khed, rejected the said application and directed the matter to proceed according to law. The accused petitioners have challenged that order before this Court by way of Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. The application was moved at a belated stage namely when the evidence of the petitioners-accused was to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. This by itself is sufficient not to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. On the light of that Rule discharged. Interim relief granted stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs....
Sou. Anusaya Daulat Thakare Vs. Shri Daulat Rajaram Thakare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR729
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner herein had filed an application for maintenance for herself as well as two minor children. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasik, after considering the material on record was pleased to order maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month for the petitioner herein and Rs. 100/- each for the Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 from the date of the order.2. That the petitioner and respondent No. 1 were married is not in dispute. The only question was whether the respondent No. 1 was bound to maintain the petitioner as it was the contention of the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner had left the matrimonial home on her own, while considering the case of the applicant it has come on record that she was unable to maintain herself. Therefore, the only question was whether the respondent No. 1 was bound to maintain her. The case of the respondent No. 1 that it was the petitioner who had deserted the matrimonial home was disbelieved by the Magistrate. Two children were born out of the...
Ashit P Parikh Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT299Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant in C/804/98 Shakti Shipping International, importer of the vessel and its cargo which have been ordered to be confiscated.Appellants in C/805/98 and C/806/98 are partners of Shakti Shipping International. Appellant in C/782/98 is a director of Ashit Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. on whom a penalty has been imposed under Section 112. Appellant in C/783/98 is a partner of the firm GP Dave and Sons (Shipping) on whom also a penalty under Section 112 has been imposed.Shakti Shipping International had purchased a ship MV Kristian Raud, from its owners in United Arab Emirates for being broken up. After usual formalities such a permission was granted for purchase and for breaking. Some days after this, Custom officers, visited the breaking yard, found some drums containing an oily substance in there and a quantity of the substance still on board the ship. Enquiries by the Customs concluded that this was fish oil import of which was prohibited by the policy in force. Notices were is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »