Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Anil Shankarrao Zade Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)MhLj592

1. The petitioner claims that State has denied him substantial right of furlough under The Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, (hereinafter called the said Rules) on the ground that Rule 4(11) of the said Rules, provides that the prisoner convicted for offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, are not eligible for grant of furlough. Learned Advocate Shri Sirpurkar was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court in the matter.2. The State in its reply has stated that the petitioner had preferred Criminal Application No. 606 of 2001 for grant of parole or temporary bail which was rejected by this Court on 18-5-2001 and that the petitioner is not entitled to furlough.3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner urged before me insofar as challenge on the basis of Rule 4(11) of the said Rules is concerned, the said challenge of the petitioner is based upon misconception that Rule 4(11) of the said Rules is applicable to Maharashtra whereas the said R...

Sandipan Bhagwant Thorat Vs. Ramdas Bandu Athavale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom110; 2002(1)BomCR168; (2002)1BOMLR498; 2002(1)MhLj754

ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. This petition has been filed under the provisions of section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the respondent as a member of the Lok Sabha from the Pandharpur constituency, which is reserved for the candidates belonging to the scheduled caste. The result of the election was declared on 7-10-1999. The petitioner and the respondent were candidates at the election. The respondent had claimed, in his nomination paper that he belongs to Mahar caste, which is a scheduled caste.2. The petitioner, in the petition, claims that the respondent does not belong to Mahar caste. He claims that the respondent does not belong to scheduled caste, therefore, he was not eligible to be a candidate from the Pandharpur Constituency. According to the petitioner, the date on which Act No. 15 of 1990, which amends the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 came into force, the respondent was already professing Buddhist religion, therefor...

Deepak Hiralal Gobil and anr. Vs. Bombay Port Trust

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ326Bom

1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioners seek to challenge the orders dated August 17, 1993 annexed at Exhibit 'F' and 'F-1' to the writ petition issued by the Bombay Port Trust whereby the services of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 stood terminated. The facts and circumstances leading to the present petition arc few and may be shortly narrated. On March 19, 1991 at about 10.30 a.m. the petitioners 1 and 2 who were working as Water Supply Lascar and Safaiwala along with one Rajaram Sawinkar who was working as a Scavenger were accosted by the security guards near shed No. 8. They were carrying heavy looking plastic bags and when the security guards approached them to interrogate, Rajaram Sawinkar fled away from the scene throwing away the bag. On search being taken of the petitioners, it was revealed that the plastic bag which was being carried by the petitioner No. 1 contained 25 packets of Hero Honda motorbike spare parts. Petitioner No. 2 was also searched a...

Cherie Ginwalla (Dr.) Vs. Medical Council of India and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)2BOMLR272; 2002(1)MhLj906

ORDERS.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Rule, Respondents waive service. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner is a citizen of India. Having acquired certain qualifications in the field of Medicine from the University of Southern California, she wishes to have herself registered under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The second respondent is the Registrar of the Maharashtra Medical Council. The third respondent is the Union of India. 3. There are two aspects to this petition. The first relates to the alleged failure of respondent No. 1 in discharging its statutory obligations under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as the I.M.C. Act), in not processing the proposal for recognition of the M.D. degree made by the University of Southern California from which the petitioner graduated. The second aspect pertains to the entitlement of the petitioner to be registered under the I.M.C. Act in view of her having acquired a qualification included in Part II of the Third Sc...

Parshuram Vithoba Bhandare Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR471; 2002(2)BomCR740

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension on his retirement on superannuation. 2. The facts which are not disputed are in a very narrow compass, that the petitioner was recruited as a daily wager in 1964. In 1980 a post of labour supervisor on the establishment of respondent No. 2 was sanctioned. On 13-9-1983 the petitioner was appointed permanently on that post. It is not in dispute, as will be seen from the averments made in para 2 of the affidavit in reply, that the petitioner was made permanent in the cadre of supervisor on 13-9-1980. Thus the petitioner was undisputedly working as a labour supervisor from 13-9-1980 though he was working as a daily wager since 1964. 3. The petitioner was denied the pensionary benefits. Relying on the provisions of Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982, according to which the petitioner has not com...

Kalpana Gopalkrishna Singhania and ors. Vs. Naresh M. Kabra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR858; 2002(5)BomCR370

A.B. Palkar, J.1. This is a suit for eviction and recovery of mesne profits. Plaintiff No. 2 is a joint stock company registered under the Companies Act and original plaintiff No. 1 was at all material times Managing Director of the company. Original plaintiff No. 1 died intestate on 3-1-1980 during the pendency of the suit and his heirs plaintiffs 1-A to 1-D are brought on record. Plaintiff No. 1 is member/shareholder of the Shankar Sagar Co-operative Housing Society holding five shares and the society has allotted as such member a flat bearing No. 44 on the 7th floor of the said building Shankar Sagar situated at Bhulabhai Desai Road, Bombay, Original plaintiff was holding the aforesaid shares and the beneficial interest in the said flat No. 44 as a nominee for and on behalf of plaintiff No. 2 Company. The said shares and beneficial interest in the flat are the assets of the company.2. Late Lala Kailaspath Singhania was the uncle of original plaintiff No. 1. His daughter Amarpali got...

Madhukar Deorao Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra and 4 ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2050; I(2002)DMC769

ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The applicant seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail and bail granted to respondent Nos. 2 to 4, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4, apprehending arrest sought anticipatory bail for offence under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and interim bail was granted to them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana vide order dated 1.12.2000. On 2.12.2000, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed an application that as the wife of respondent No. 2 had expired, there was every likelihood of adding Sections 302 and 306 of the I.P.C. by the police and, as such, the interim bail be granted in respect of the said offences. The Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 2.12.2000, directed that-even if new sections are added, in connection with the death of the wife of respondent No. 2, the applicant shall be released on bail in the event of arrest as per the order dated 1.12.2000. Subsequently, by order dated 8.12.2000, the anticipatory bail was ...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. M/S German Remedies Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Respondents were not present. Heard Shri George, who reiterates the various submissions in the appeal memorandum.2. The issue of the denial of the modvat credit to the respondent is on several grounds. The form of the document covering the goods leaving the factory on payment of duty was changed in April, 1994. Earlier the original copy of the gate pass (GP1) was required to accompany the goods. In the altered system the duplicate copy of the invoices was required to be issued. In the initial period. i.e., April, 1994 there was a substantial amount of confusion in the minds of both the department as well as the assessee as to the copy of the invoices which would accompany the goods. The learned Commissioner in this situation held as condonable the lapse, proper copy of the document to accompany the goods. In the case of the invoices issued by M/s. Anil Starch Products Ltd, he observed that the invoices on examination were found to be in order. In regard to the Indo-German Laborator...

Arun Die Works Vs. C.C. Ex., Mumbai-iv

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Out of the total duty demanded of Rs. 2.76 lakhs approx., the applicant has already deposited Rs. 2 lakhs.2. Having regard to the issue involved and the facts of the case, we waive deposit of the remaining duty, and stay its recovery....

ErIn Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Cc, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The counsel for the applicant says that the applicant has not deposited the amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs ordered on 10.7.1995 by the Tribunal....