Mumbai Court May 2000 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.
Raghunath Dattatraya Vadekar Vs. Smt. Ratnabai Jinappa Upadhye and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom1; 2001(1)MhLj151
N.J. Pandya, J. 1. The learned single Judge while dealing with these two matters had occasion to notice the effect of Section 32(1A)(b) not considered at all by the Division Bench of this Court when they decided the matter that is reported in (1987) 89 B LR 4. The Division Bench was considering the effect of newly introduced Sub-section (1B) in Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. This was introduced by an amending Act No. 49 of 1969.2. As rightly held by the learned single Judge in his order dated 2-2-1-989, making the reference, in the case reported in the said Bombay Law Reporter in the matter between Bajirao Maruti Dhumal v. Shankar Yalleppa Mane, the word possession as used in the aforesaid newly introduced Sub-section (1B) was interpreted to include a constructive possession of the landlord. This was done on the basis that as per the general law of property, owner of a property is taken to be in possession for all times to come till his ownership is ...
Gulzarilal Chhotalal Khokhawala (Vaishya) Vs. Ulfat Begum Mohamed Hani ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom327; (2000)2BOMLR772; 2000(3)MhLj722
ORDERVijay Daga, J. 1. A small impugned order exhibiting gross judicial impropriety on the part of the City Civil Court, Bombay is the subject-matter of challenge in the present revision application filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'C. P. C.' for short). The impugned order dated 17th December, 1997 passed in suit No. 2938 of 1986 being product of oral motion for speaking to minutes reads as under : 'ORAL ...
Marathwada Krishi Vidyapith Magasvargiya Sevak Kalyankari Sangh Vs. St ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR183; (2000)IIILLJ869Bom
V.K. Barde, J.1. These Writ Petitions are filed, either by the Unions of the workers of Marathwada Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'), or, by the employees of the University, against the State of Maharashtra, the University, etc. As the points involved in these Writ Petitions can be disposed of by common judgment, those are heard together.Writ Petition No. 686 of 19882. In Writ Petition No. 686 of 1988, filed by the Union, Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth Magasvargiya Sevak Kalyankari Sangh, the Petitioner has contended that the University has employed about 3155 daily rated labourers, apart from 1939 permanent labourers, in its Colleges, Research Stations, Agricultural Stations, Gramsevak Training Schools, etc. The University and the State have prescribed the pay scale of Rs. 200-280 for the permanent labourers working under the University. However, the daily rated labourers are getting daily wages varying Rs. 6, Rs. 7, Rs. 8 and Rs. 10, depending on the...
C.S. Dixit Vs. Bajaj Tempo Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR289; [2000(86)FLR491]; (2000)IILLJ561Bom
N.J. Pandya, J.1. By order dated February 26, 1992 the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to refer this matter to a larger Bench under the following circumstances.2. An order of the First Labour Court Pune, in Reference (IDA) No. 172 of 1984 was challenged in the present petition before the learned Single Judge. The view taken by the First Labour Court was in view of the provisions of Section 59 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and it had not entertained the award. As could be seen from the file, the learned single Judge by his order dated February 18, 1992, in this very petition, had taken a decision in favour of the petitioner, but before he could sign the judgment, the Division Bench judgment of this Court was brought to his notice rendered in Shivaji Agricultural College, Amravati v. Mukhtyar Ahmed S/o. Haji Mian Sheikh and Anr. reported in 1987 M.L.J. 646. In the ea...
Narendra Bhikahi Darada Vs. Kalyanrao Jaywantrao Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR151; 2000(3)BomCR744
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner who was defeated in the election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 71 Yeola Assembly Constituency which was held on 11th September 1999, filed this petition. He challenges the election of the respondent No. 1, who was declared elected on 7-10-1999 for having secured 39419 votes as against the petitioner, who is the immediate defeated candidate having secured 39198 votes. So the petitioner was defeated on a margin of 221 votes.2. The petitioner had contested the election as an official candidate of Congress (I) on the symbol of 'HAND', and the first respondent had contested the election as an official candidate of Shiv Sena whose symbol is 'BOW AND ARROW'.3. The petitioner challenges the election of the first respondent on the ground of corrupt practices and also on material irregularities of counting of votes. The first respondent appeared and filed the written statement. He has also taken out a Chamber Summons being No. 184/2000...
Nana S/O Narayan Shinde and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4778
ORDERB.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard Shri S. B. Talekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri N. H. Borade, learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 and Shri S.D. More, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 have invoked the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashment of the order dated 17-12-1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class; Bhoom, District Osmanabad.3. The respondent No. 2 (original complaihant) has filed private criminal coin-plaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhoom, District Osmanabad against the petitioners Nos. 1 to 5. According to the respondent No. 2, the petitioners Nos. 1, to 5, on 24-6-1999 at 6 p.m. at Bhoom assaulted him and intentionally insulted him with intent to humiliate him by making reference to his caste in the place within public view. The respondent No. 2 is a member of Scheduled Tribe. He had been to the police station but the Police Officer att...
Pedder and Pedder Tiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT751Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant manufactures, among other products, glazed ceramic tiles. In arriving at the assessable value of such tiles, the appellant deducted from their sale price a 3% cash discount. The appellant stated that such cash discount was available to a customer making payment for the goods within five days from the date of invoice. The notice was issued in May, 1998 proposing disallowance of this discount and demanding duty payable thereby on clearance made between March, 1995 and March, 1998. The notice alleged that the discount was passed to those customers who are not entitled to it. The notice also invoked the extended period contained in the proviso under section 111, proposed to demand interest due under section 11AB and imposing penalty under section 11 AC.2. The appellant contested the notice, contending that it was entitled to claim discount on all the sales made by it because it had satisfied the condition that the discount was uniformly applicable and it was made known to...
Bank of Baroda Vs. M/S. Himalaya Brush Industries and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR697
ORDERA.B. Palkar, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of money by plaintiff Bank.2. Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing brushes. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are partners of the firm and defendant No. 6 is the guarantor.3. Defendant No. 1 applied for grant of credit facilities and was given cash credit facility against hypothecation to the extent of Rs. 75,000/- and cashcredit against book debts to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- on execution of necessary document. Defendants No. 2 to 5 as partners of defendant No. 1 executed documents like demand promissory note, hypothecation deed, letter of continuing security in respect of both the facilities; whereas defendant No. 6 executed guarantee deed for the aforesaid facilities granted to the defendant Nos. 1 to 5. On execution of all the necessary documents, defendants opened a current account. Defendants converted their account to cash credit. The facility was thereafter enjoyed by the defendants and from time to ti...
Rajendra Vithal Raut Vs. Gangadhar Dilip Sopal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom419; 2000(3)ALLMR573; 2000(4)BomCR26; (2000)2BOMLR843; 2000(3)MhLj671
ORDERR. M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mr. M. M. Vashi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, the learned Counsel for Mr. Dilip Gangadhar Sopal. 2. By means of this chamber summons taken out by the election petitioner it is prayed that the election petition be allowed to be amended by correcting the name of the 1st respondent as Dilip Gangadhar Sopal instead of Gangadhar Dilip Sopal in the title of the petition and other consequential amendments arising therefrom. 3. In the affidavit in support of the chamber summons, the election petitioner has stated that in the title of the petition the name of the 1st respondent has been mentioned as Gangadhar Dilip Sopal instead of Dilip Gangadhar Sopal due to oversight. According to the election petitioner the mistake is a typographical mistake since in the body of the petition the name of the elected candidate i.e. 1st respondent is correctly shown as Dilip Gangadhar Sopal. The petitioner has further stated that as soon as the afor...
Shri Dattaram Pangam Vs. Mr. Allan Eurico Vales and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR523; (2001)3BOMLR583
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. Eviction proceedings were initiated against the appellant by the original applicants, now represented by their universal heir Allan Eurico Vales respondent No. 1. The eviction was sought on three grounds, namely :- (1) sub-letting a part of tenanted premises; (2) changing the user of the premises from residential to non-residential; and (3) that the appellant had acquired residential premises of his own. The Additional Rent Controller ordered eviction of the appellant on all the grounds vide judgment dated 20-9-1989. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Administrative Tribunal was summarily rejected. The appellant challenged the said order in Writ Petition No. 455/1991, which was disposed of by learned Single Judge of this Court vide Oral judgment dated 9-10-1996. The learned Single Judge set aside the eviction sought on the ground of acquisition of residential premises by the appellant since it was found that the appellant was already in possession of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »