Mumbai Court September 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.
Jamna Prasad Kirodilal Sharma Vs. Grendra Kumar Gopichand Mittal and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR15; 1999BomCR(Cri)15; 1999(2)MhLj438
ORDERT.K. chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This matter arises out of a petition filed by the petitioner before the Executive Magistrate, Kalyan, alleging certain offences said to have been committed by the respondents in respect of the property known as Gokul Lunch Restaurant. The Magistrate, however going into the merits of the case dismissed the complaint. Against that order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the District and Sessions Judge, Thane. The revisional Court also, on examining the merits of the case, dismissed the revision. Against these orders of dismissal of the courts below, the petitioner filed this petition purported to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. I have gone through the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Magistrate narrating certain disputes regarding the possession and title of the building aforementioned and by threatened the dispossession thereof. However, there is no averment in the complaint that the same dispute will li...
Ramniklal Premchand Mehta Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)230; 2002(143)ELT281(Bom)
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. The writ petition seeks to quash the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First class at Daman filed by Shri H.D. Parekh, Superintendent, Customs, Valsad against the petitioner for allegedly committing an offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act and read with Section 120-B of IPC. The main complaint against the petitioner is that in the course of investigation it is revealed that the petitioners were importing cone winding machines of foreign origin and also importing textile machinery (Draw Texturising machines) and were supplying the same, to various industries situated on the country. The complainant alleged that the petitioner was supplying these machines to M/s. Warp & Weft Industries Pvt. Ltd. at Silvassa and the said supply of machines was made in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act avoiding customs duty. The core of the allegation is that the components of the machinery were not fully valued for the purpose of Custom...
Dadasaheb Shankar Yadav Vs. Chandrakant Jijaba Yadav and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4747
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Nobody represented for the petitioner even though on record Shri Shuja Uddin has filed vakalatnama, Ms. Deogaonkar holding for Shri V.A. Thorat appears for the Respondent No. 1. Shri Mhaispurkar A.P.P. appears for the Respondent No. 2.2. The writ petition is to challenge the order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara dated 6-12-1989. By the impugned order the learned Additional Judge has set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, was in R.C.C. No. 214/83 discharging the petitioner from the offence punishable under Section 463, I.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner in the complaint before the Magistrate was that the petitioner was collecting an amount of Rs. 700/-using a letter of authority purported to be issued by the Respondent No. 2 authorizing him to collect the Rs. 700/- from the sugar factory, Bhuinj towards the transport charges. When a suit was filed by the respondent No. 1 against the sugar factory, Bh...
Shri Yeshwant Nono Naik (Deceased) Through L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Shri Joa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR298
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. By the present Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 14th April, 1997, passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Eviction Appeal No. 24/93. By the impugned Judgment, the Tribunal has set aside the Judgment and Order dated 22nd July, 1993, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Ponda, in Case No. BLDG/21/91 and has allowed the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 23(A)(3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 hereinafter called 'the said Act'.2. The facts in brief relevant for the decisions are that the Respondent No. 1 herein is the landlord in respect of a house bearing No. 372 comprising of two portions, and situated in the property of the Respondent No. 1 at Savoi Verem within the taluka of Ponda. Some time in the year 1960, the predecessor of the Petitioners herein by name Yeshwant Nono Naik was leased a portion of the said house for a period of eleven months f...
Krishna Venctexa Porob Shastri and ors. Vs. Sebastiao Luis Fernandes ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR374
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:(1) The plaintiffs not having produced any document of title, could the Courts below decree the suit?(2) The decision is contrary to the pleadings. The Courts below committed breach of procedure in holding that there was admission of original plaintiffs, in the pleadings when there is no such admission.(3) The Courts below failed to consider that the defendants/appellants had pleaded prescription and that Article 526(2) was fully attracted.2. In substance the substantial questions of law which are required to be decided in this appeal are that firstly whether in the absence of documentary title, the Courts below could have decreed the suit?, secondly whether by holding that the title of the plaintiffs has been admitted, the Courts below have acted in breach of procedure inasmuch as when there is no such admission on the part of the defendant? and thirdly whether the Courts below failed...
New Haven Steel Ball Corporation Private Limited Vs. Shri Ramnarayan K ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR18; [1998(80)FLR934]
ORDERA. P. Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 1st February, 1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, in Reference (II) No. 189 of 1994 directing the petitioner company to reinstate the 1st respondent workman with continuity of service and backwages with effect from 9th June, 1975.2. This facts relevant for this judgment may first be set out. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of steel balls for industrial use. The 1st respondent workman was working with the petitioner company as a wireman/electrician. According to the petitioner in the year 1975 there was acute recession and glut in the market for the petitioner's products and shortage of power and electrical energy which substantially affected the volume of manufacturing activities and business and rendered a sizeable number of work force surplus to the requirements of the petitioner company. In thes...
Shantaram Hirachand Danez Vs. Narayan Bapusa Fulpagar (Since Deceased ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR253; 1999(1)BomCR46
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1.The judgement and decree dated June 22, 1987 passed by 11nd Additional District Judge, Nasik in Civil Appeal No. 82 of 1985 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yeola on 10-12-1984 in Suit No. 46 of 1977 decreeing plaintiffs suit for eviction is under challenge. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the suit for eviction was filed by the Court Receiver without obtaining leave of the Court which appointed him and, therefore, the said suit being bad in law right from inception, the decree passed therein is also bad in law and unsustainable.2. The brief facts relevant and necessary for deciding the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are :---The premises in question comprise of two rooms, room No. 1 and 4 situated at C.T.S. No. 3027 at Yeola, Dist. Nasik. The premises in question belonged to Narayan Bapusa Fulpagar, original respondent (since deceased and now repres...
Shri Kishor Govardhandas Tanna Vs. Shri Malhari Nimbaji Patil and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR310; 1999(1)BomCR217
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. These two writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India relate to identical facts and arise out of common judgment passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 26-6-1984 and, therefore, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Writ Petition No. 4313 of 1984 the land in dispute is Survey No. 26/ 1 and 25/2 situated at village Sarasan, Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad. One Parsu Tukaram Patil was in possession of the said land as tenant on 1-4-1957, more commonly known as tiller's day, and as such became deemed purchaser under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'Bombay Tenancy Act). The purchase was effected in favour of Shri Parsu Tukaram Patil on 12-4-1969. He sold the said land in favour of one Shri Bhatia without seeking appropriate permission as required under section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The proceedings were initiated under se...
S. Irani (Sorkhab) Vs. Dinshaw and Dinshaw and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ240
N.J. Pandya, J.1. It is an admitted position that the alleged offence is punishable for a period of three years and if the provisions under Section 468, Cr. P.C. are taken into consideration as it is, the period of limitation shall be three years only. The complaint thus having been filed on 18th April, 1992 is hopelessly time barred.2. It is for this reason that in the Courts below submissions were made that it be treated as continuing offence. The point has not found favour with either of the two Courts. The result was that the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation by his order dated 7-3-1995, page 15. Same was the outcome of the Criminal Revision Application No. 412 of 1995 when the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by order dated 20-9-1996 dismissed the revision. In short, both the Courts below have come to. a conclusion that the period of limitation has started to run from the date when the offence was committed i.e. 10-10-1983 and the period...
Shri Chandapa Balapa Gunjikar Vs. Silca Industries
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR479
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The substantial questions of the law which arise for consideration in this appeal are:(b) Whether a lease deed compulsorily registerable and not registered can be looked into for the purpose of deciding as to the existence of relationship between the parties to the deed.(c) Whether the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit of the respondents by invoking the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act after coming to a finding that the respondents had failed to establish that he was a lessee of the suit plot.2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the. respondent herein filed a suit for injunction and in the alternative for possession of the suit property on the ground that the appellant had granted lease of the eastern half of plot bearing Survey No. 28/2 situated at Dicarpale, Davorlim-Goa admeasuring an area of 483 sq. metres for annual rent of Rs. 3250/- on execution of a lease deed for initial period of 11 months. Prior to...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »