Mumbai Court June 1999 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.
Hastimal Nayanmal JaIn Vs. Dattatraya Sayanna Tote
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR257; 2000(1)BomCR186; (2000)2BOMLR913
ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 457 of 1989. By that order the learned District Judge has allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent and has passed a decree of eviction against the petitioner/ tenant. The decree has been passed against the tenant on the ground that he has acquired alternate accommodation. It appears that an amendment wascarried in the plaint during the pendency of the Appeal before the learned District Judge. 2. It was the case of the plaintiff/landlord that the tenant during the pendency of Appeal had acquired residential accommodation being Flat No. 22. After the plaintiff was allowed to amend his plaint, it appears that the tenant had filed his Written Statement. The parties also led evidence. The Court after appreciating the evidence found that the plaintiff has established that the tenant has acquired alternate accommodation. 3. The learned Cou...
Malegaon Taluka Big Bagayatdar Co-operative Credit Association Vs. the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR560; 1999(4)BomCR437; 1999(3)MhLj525
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. K.S. Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Nobody is present for the respondents.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the No. 1 filed a dispute against the present petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for recovering certain amount before Co-operative Court, Nashik. In that dispute the present petitioner appeared and filed an application raising preliminary objection regarding limitation- After hearing the present petitioner and the disputant society i.e. respondent No. 1 the Co-operative Court upheld the objection of limitation and dismissed the dispute so far as present petitioner was concerned. Respondent No. 1 society filed an appeal before Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court against the said order and since the appeal was allowed by the Appellate Court by its order dated 6th August, 1984 the present petition has been filed.3. It was urged by Mr. Patil for the petitioner that the dispute, that was filed by resp...
Bala Pandurang Kesarkar and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR884; 2000CriLJ693; 1999(3)MhLj192
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Since both these Criminal Appeals arise out of the same set of facts and a common impugned judgment, we are disposing them off by one judgment.2. Through these appeals, the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 1st October, 1997, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in the Sessions Case Nos. 80 of 1994 and 834 of 1997 convicting and sentencing them in the manner stated hereinafter:-Under section 392 read with 34 of I.P.C. to seven years R.I. and to paya fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further R.I. for three months.The appellant Devendra Krishna Kalsekar was further convicted under section 397 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo seven years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months.The substantive sentences of the appellant Devendra Krishna Kalsekar were ordered to run concurrently.3. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :The informant-victim Rambahadur M. Tiwari, P.W. 1 in the year ...
Sevantilal Manilal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: [2000]74ITD155(Mum)
ORDER1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1986-87 confirming the penalty levied under section 27 1 (1)(c) of the Act.2. In a search and seizure action on 3-6-1988 in the case of the assessee and the firm M/s. Sevantilal Manilal & Co., in which he was a partner, the firm was found to have deposited on 10-5-1985 a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 in their bank account, but the name of the person or the source thereof was not recorded in their books. By letter dated 19-9-1988 the assessee owned up having given cash of Rs. 2,00,000 to the firm on 10-5-1985 which was deposited by them in their bank accounts. The assessee also claimed that this money was subsequently withdrawn in two lots by him Rs. 1,25,000 on 5-8-1985 and Rs. 75,000 on 7-6-1985 and was claimed to have been utilised in purchasing excess jewellery of Rs. 1,90,750 found with the assessee and a deposit of Rs. 11,000 for booking a Maruti Car. As the assessment for the year ...
Shri Vasant Laxman Oak Vs. Shri Ragho Navasu Wakh and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR562; 2000(1)BomCR632
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner is a non-tribal has filed this petition challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division dated 29th October, 1984 passed in suo motu revision under section 7 of The Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1974'). The said revision had arisen out of the order of the Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Ulhasnagar, in Restoration Case No. TNC.RSI. SR. 269 dated 30th June, 1979.2. It is clear from the record of this petition, (in which, in all three orders have been annexed) that the non tribal was all through out absent. The first order was an order passed by A.L.T. No. 2 and Additional Mamlatdar, Kalyan, in proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of the 1948'). At that time also the non tribal-respondent No. 1 before this Court was absent. Then there is another order...
Dr. Sudhakar S/O Shankarrao Sarwate and Another Vs. Visvesvaraya Regio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR305; 2000(4)BomCR136; (2000)1BOMLR140; 1999(3)MhLj433
ORDERJ.N. Patel, J.1. By these Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the selection and appointment of respondents 4, 5 and 6 as Professors in Industry Institute Interaction, Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Engineering, by seeking writ in the nature of certiorari/ mandamus and appropriate direction or order so as to quash the selection and appointments made by the Selections Committee as Professors in V.R.C.E. and further that the respondents 1 to 3 should constitute a proper Selection Committee as per the Government Resolution dated 25th October, 1977 and be directed that the selection be made strictly on merits from fully qualified candidates as per the qualifications laid down by AICTE and for any other appropriate writ, direction or order with costs of the petition.2. Visvesvaraya Regional College of Engineering (in short VRCE) advertised the posts of Professors, one in Industrial Engineering (Mech.), one in Urban Plan...
Haroon Mahatab Jamadar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR900; (1999)3BOMLR868; 1999(3)MhLj376
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through Criminal Appeal No. 601 of 1995, the appellants (Haroon Mahatab Jamadar, Mahatab Ibrahim Jamadar, Sharifa Mahatab Jamadar, Ibrahim Mahatab Jamadar, Ismail Mahatab Jamadar, and Nehru @ Jawarddin Mahatab Jamadar) have challenged the judgment and order dated 22-9-1995, passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 110 of 1995, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. Through the said appeal, appellant-Sharifa Mahatab Jamadar has also challenged her conviction and sentence of three months R.I. and fine of Rs. 100/- in default, 15 days R.I. for offence under section 506(ii) I.P.C. The substantive sentences of Sharifa Mahatab Jamadar have been directed to run concurrently. Criminal Application No. 3684 of 1995 has been preferred for bail by the appellants Ibrahim Mahatab Jamadar, Ismail Mahatab Jamadar and Nehru @ Jawa...
Orient Syntex Limited and Others Vs. Besant Capital Tech Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR345; [2001]104CompCas669(Bom); 2000CriLJ210
ORDERJ.N. Patel, J.1. On dishonour of Cheque No. 434881 dated 26-1-1995, drawn by the petitioner Company Orient Syntex Limited in the sum of Rs. 12,56,212/- in favour of Besant Capital Tech Limited, the complainant Besant Capital Tech Limited issued notice to the petitioner Company and its Directors, demanding payment within 15 days from the receipt of the notice failing which the petitioner Company and its Directors would be prosecuted for having committed offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. As the petitioner Company and its Directors refused to comply with the notice, a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 came to be filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Akola, against the petitioner Company and its Directors, which came to be registered as Complaint Case No. 1120 of 1996.2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after verification of the complaint, passed an order issuing process against the accused un...
Akhtar HussaIn Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4754
J.N. Patel, J.1. Rule.2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks an order to quash and set aside the rejection of his application by the respondent-State to commute his sentence with further directions to the respondent No. 1 to hear the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner also seeks appropriate action against the respondent No. 1 for the breach of the orders passed by this Court, in addition to other ancillary reliefs.3. The petitioner along with his two sons, was convicted for having committed offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for having violated the kerosene Restriction Order 1966 and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month, on the accusation that when the shop of the petitioner was raided, a large quantity of Kerosene (200 liters) was found meant for adultering turpentine oil. The petitioner was present in the s...
Kalpana D/O Nilaram Harinkhede Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR913
J.N. Patel, J.1. The petitioner, Kalpana d/o Nilaram Harinkhede (minor girl), who is a victim of assault and use of criminal force with intention to outrage her modesty at the hands of respondent No. 2. Moreshwar s/o Ghabilal Rahandale, and respondent No. 3, Keshaw s/o Dimodhar Patle, has approached this Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, impugning the discharge of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from having committed offence under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Gondia, in State v. Moreshwar Rahangdale and Anr., Criminal Case No. 1065 of 1995 decided on 7.1.1998 on the ground that the trial of the respondents/accused was pending in the said Court for more than two years, without any fault on their part, and as the trial has not commenced, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in 'Common Cause' a Registered Society...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »