Mumbai Court September 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.
Pannalal Sunderlal Choksi and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)1BOMLR349; 2000CriLJ4442; 2000(4)MhLj674
ORDERB. B. Vagyani. J.1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri Shirish Gupte, with Shri B. R. Warma, learned Advocate, for the petitioners and learned A. P. P. Shri V. D. Sapkal for the respondent State in Criminal Writ Petition No. 361/1998. 2. Heard learned Advocate Shri V.D. Hon for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. Shri S. K. Tambe for the respondent State in Criminal Application No. 2397/1998. 3. The law points involved in Criminal Writ Petition No. 361/1998 and Criminal Application No. 2397/1998 are identical and, therefore, both the petitions are disposed of by common order. 4. The facts giving rise to the Criminal Writ Petition No. 361/1998 are as under : The petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are the Directors of M/s Gufic Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the said company'). The said company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The office of the said company is situated at Nehru Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400 007. The registered office of the said company is in the ...
Ramakant Vithobaji Gaikwad Vs. Government of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR685; (2001)1BOMLR358; 2000(4)MhLj597
S. K. Shah, J.1. This Public Interest Litigation is filed by the petitioner who is a citizen of India and tax payer residing in the city of Nagpur. He himself is a legal practitioner. By this petition, he challenges the Order passed by the Revenue Minister of the respondent No. 2 - The Government of Maharashtra on 30.9.1996 in Case No. Lands 4994/1087/Case No. PK 296/J-8. By this Order, the land belonging to the respondent No. 5 was ordered to be restored to him after recovering the amount of compensation paid together with the increased amount of compensation under section 18 and simple interest at the rates prescribed by the Government from time to time.2. The joint enterprise of Government of India and State Government of Maharashtra, was set up in the name of Vishvesharaiya Regional College of Engineering, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as 'V.R.C.E.'). It was registered under the Societies Registration Act for the purpose of running Regional Engineering College. It was also regist...
The Director of Income Tax Vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Mafatlal Public Cha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)1BOMLR744; (2000)164CTR(Bom)97; 2001(2)MhLj695
S. H. Kapadia, J.1. The above group of appeals raise common questions of law. Hence they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts in Income Tax Appeal No. 81 of 1999 are taken into consideration.2. Two questions of law arise in this Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act.(1) Whether the assessee Trust was assessable as an individual and consequently entitled to deduction under Section 80-L of the Act? (2) Whether the assessee-Trust violated Section 13(1)(d) of the Act in the Assessment Year 1993-94 by not disinvesting the shares of nongovernmental Companies by 31st March, 1993? FACTS :3. The assessee-Trust came into existence after 1st June, 1973. The assessee-Trust was the holder of equity shares of Mafatlal Industries upto 31st March, 1993. The same were not disinvested or disposed of by 31st March, 1993. The assesses claims that it was entitled to hold the said shares upto 31st March, 1993; that, they were required to disinvest on and aft...
Tukaram R. Rasal Vs. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ318Bom
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Rule. By consent heard both sides forthwith.2. This Writ Petition arises out of the order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Kolhapur in appeal (IC) No. 13/1985 passed on February 23, 1987. By the impugned order the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Labour Court, Sangli on February 28, 1985 whereby the application filed by the Petitioner for restoration of original case No. B.I.R. No. 42/1980 was restored. The Petitioner had filed B.I.R. 42/1980 challenging the order of dismissal by the Respondent.3. It appears that on February 15, 1982 the Labour Court in its camp at Karad dismissed the application No. B.I.R. 42/1980 by the Petitioner on the ground that his Advocate withdrew his case. On coming to know the fact he approached the Presiding Officer and the Presiding Officer instructed him to file the application for restoration of the case. Accordingly he sent an application for restoration by post on July 1, 1982. The Labour Court c...
Dhanraj S/O Kisana Raut and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR432
R.K. Batta, J. 1. The appellants were tried for the murder of Sindhubai w/o Ramesh Kelbaji Raut by setting her on fire under section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. The husband of Sindhubai viz. Ramesh Kelbaji Raut was also charge-sheeted along with the appellants for the said offence, but he was absconding and the trial proceeded against the appellants who have been convicted by the trial Court for the murder of Sindhubai under section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. The appellants have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/- each in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The conviction and sentence is challenged by the appellants in this appeal.2. The prosecution had examined 11 witnesses in support of the charge. The prosecution case, in brief is that, deceased Sindhubai was married with absconding accused Ramesh about 3 years prior to the date of incident; absconding accused Ramesh used to harass and ill-treat Sindhuba...
S.G. Bajpai Vs. Chimanlal B. Kansara Since Deceased by His Legal Repre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR347
J.N. Patel, J.1. The petitioner has impugned the judgment and decree dated 15-1-1985 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Palghar, in R.C.S. No. 177 of 1977 and that in Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1985 in which by judgment and order dated 22-6-1988, the appeal preferred by the petitioner-tenant came to be dismissed by the IV Addl. District Judge, Thane.2. The plaintiff-landlord was required to file the suit against the defendant-tenant for eviction and possession on the sole ground of arrears of rent i.e. under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Rent Act'). It was the case of the original plaintiff-landlord that he is the owner and rent collector of a building known as 'Chandan Niwas' situate at Boisar, Dist. Thane, wherein the defendant is occupying Room No. 4 as a monthly tenant of the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. That the defendant is in arrears of rent from 1-10-1973 till ...
Natwar Transport Company Vs. Transport Commissioner and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR696
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.Heard both sides.In spite of notice and even after an opportunity for filing reply was granted to the respondents on the last occasion, no reply has been filed so far. The averments in the writ petition have, therefore, remained uncontroverted.2. The only question that arises in this writ petition is whether the Joint Transport Commissioner was right in rejecting the petitioner's application for issuing temporary permit to operate on Nagpur-Bhopal route for a period between 21st July, 2000 to 31st October, 2000. The Joint Transport Commissioner, while rejecting the said application, vide order dated August 8, 2000, preferred by the petitioner, observed thus :'In light of the above background the present application for issue of Temporary permit for a period 21-7-2000 to 31-10-2000 is being considered now perusal of the application shows that the main intention of the applicant is for issue of Temporary Permit pending...
Parvez Shah S/O Babullah Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR208
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.This petition takes exception to the order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 19th August, 2000 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. The column for 'reasons' at No. 6 in the said order reads as under:'No information and clinching documents have been produced in support of the caste claim.'No other reason is indicated by the respondent No. 2 while invalidating the caste-claim of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner had filed documents in support of the caste claim, efficacy of which has not been considered in the impugned order at all. This approach cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny.2. It is, however, relevant to point out that this Court has observed that similar orders have been passed by the respondent No. 2 in other cases as well. The law as to the practice and procedure to be adopted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is no more res-integra and well settled by catena of decisions o...
Yusuf Khan Mahboob Khan Vs. RiazuddIn AllauddIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR8
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. The present petition challenges the order passed by the Divisional Sub-Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Milk) Amravati dated 25th April, 2000, whereby it is declared that the duly elected committee consisting of members who have been elected in the meeting which was held under the Chairmanship of Abdul Jalil Sk. Ahmed, vide Resolution No. 4 was approved and that the petitioner was not duly elected President of the society. The said order has been passed pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the authority dated 28th March 2000. By the said show cause notice the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against the society with regard to the irregularities in the society. No other particulars have been mentioned in the said notice dated 28th March, 2000. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said notice the petitioner, by letter dated 18th April, 2000, not only respo...
Nandkishor Rampal Lohiya and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2742
ORDERB.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard Shri Vijay Sharma, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri N.H. Borade, learned APP for the State.2. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent, taken up for final hearing.3. This Criminal Revision Application is directed against the order dated 7-1-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No. 47 of 1994. The petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner No. 4 is their Accountant and the petitioner No. 5 is serving as Driver.4. The deceased Joytsna was married to petitioner No. 1 on 14-12-1985. Jyotsna was to attend the marriage of her brother at Beed. On 23-5-1991, the petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 were asked to reach Jyotsna to Beed. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 did not send their grandson Kalpesh along with Jyotsna. The petitioner No. 1 wanted to join Jyotsna. He left his house on Hero Honda motorcycle and overtook the vehicle. He asked the petitioner No. 5 to go back on his motorcycle to Parali an...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »