Mumbai Court October 2002 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.
Makbul Rasul Alias Babalal Vs. Dastagir Dada Jamdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR193; 2003(2)BomCR595; 2003(1)MhLj353
S.A. Bobde, J. 1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 29th November 1990 holding that the petitioner is not tenant of the respondent but was supervising the land on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner Maqbool Jamdar's name was entered as a tenant of the lands in question i.e. land bearing survey No. 29/3 admeasuring 1 Acre 4 Gunthas land and survey No. 30/3 admeasuring 4 Gunthas situated at Mangaon Taluka Hatkangale. The proceedings under Section 32 were started which ended in declaring the purchase ineffective. Thereafter, the proceedings under Section 32G of the Act were started and possession of the land was awarded to the landlady. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order under Section 32G of the Act, preferred an appeal against both the orders and the appeals came to be dismissed. The petitioner preferred revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal on 27th April 1979 set aside the orders of b...
Kavita Sakharam Chavan and ors. Vs. Commissioner, Konkan Division and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR741; 2003(2)BomCR821
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by a woman Sarpanch (who is the 1st petitioner herein) and two members of Village Panchayat (i.e. petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in this petition). This petition raises two questions concerning the interpretation of section 145(1-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, 'the said Act') and they are as follows :-(i) Whether it is mandatory to dissolve a Village Panchayat under the provision of section 145(1-A) of the said Act, if more than half the total number of seats in a Panchayat become vacant?(ii) Is it not necessary to provide a hearing to the members of the Village Panchayat before a decision to dissolve the Panchayat is arrived at?2. Before we deal with these two questions, it is necessary to look into the background to this controversy. Part IX was introduced in the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Seventy-third) Amendment Act, 1992 with effect from 24th April, ...
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR652
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Principal Secretary (Revenue), which decides the question regarding the liability of the petitioner company to pay the non-agricultural tax in respect of the subject land in its possession at Ojhar, Taluka Niphad, District Nasik. It is not necessary to burden this judgment with all the dates and events that precede, the decision under challenge. Suffice it to mention that the revenue authorities issued demand notice to the petitioner company demanding amount towards non-agricultural assessment in respect of the subject land, being sum of Rs. 10,98,11,575/-. That demand was disputed by the petitioner on the premise that the title of the land vested with the Union of India and that the petitioner company was Government controlled company. In the circumstances, it was contended that the subject land could not be subjected to non-agricultural assessment, in view of the mandate of Article 285(1) of Constitut...
Devendranath Keshrinath Bhiwandkar and ors. Vs. Premlabai W/O Ramnath ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom424
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Appeal by the original Defendant Nos. 2 to4 and 6 respectively takes exception to theJudgment and decree passed by the City CivilCourt, Bombay dated 27th October, 1980 in SuitNo. 5729 of 1967. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 arethe original plaintiffs. Respondent No. 5 is theoriginal Defendant No. 7 and Respondent Nos. 6 to 9are the original Defendant Nos. 8 to 11respectively. The suit property is immovableproperty situated at 36M. Mugbhat, Cross Lane,Girgaon Bombay. The property was owned by oneMoreshwar Bhai Rele who died intestete in Bombayon or about 26th August, 1916. The agreedgenealogy in respect of the family, as produced onrecord, is as follows:- SCHEDULE 'A' Moreshwar Bhai Role (died on 26.8.1916) | --------------------------------------- | | Savitribai (W) Radhabai (died on 1938) Widowed daughter (died on 14.7.1955) | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Ramnath Premlabai Keshrinath Vimla Ambarnath Kamlab...
Shri Shridhar Vinayak Modgi Vs. Shri Ravindra Khanderao Hajare and the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj1086
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is challenging the order which has been passed by the J.M.F.C. dated 7.10.1997 whereby the learned Magistrate has issued the process taking the cognizance of the complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 in context with the offences punishable under provisions of Section 420, 406, 417, 418 of IPC. The contention of the petitioner is that when a civil suit is pending in respect of the same property, in context with the same transaction, there cannot be a criminal prosecution in respect of the same. Shri Gupte has submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner in the petition challenging the said order are not correct and do not deserve to be entertained. He submitted that when this Court is requested to exercise the powers in view of provisions of Section 482 of Criminal Procedure code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code' for convenience), this Court has to be very cautious in exercising such power. He submitted th...
Damodar Mahadeo Patil Vs. Motiram Mahadeo Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR301; 2003(4)BomCR274
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the Advocates for the parties. Perused the record.2. The petitioner herein had filed regular Civil Suit No. 34 of 1991 against the respondent No. 1 and some others for partition and separate possession of 1/4 share contending that the agricultural property held by the brothers was a joint family property. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court while rejecting the monetary claim made by the petitioner against the defendants in the suit. The preliminary decree was passed on 17-1-1995. The Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1995 came to be filed by the respondent No. 1 herein against the said decree which was allowed by the lower Appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 12-2-1998 and thereby the suit filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.3. The petitioner thereupon filed the Second Appeal No. 169 of 1998 and pending the hearing and final disposal of the said second appeal preferred Civil Application No. 3202 of 1998 for direction to the parties not...
Shankarrao Bhimrao Sarnaik and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2425
R.K. Batta, J.1. All these appeals arise out of judgment dated 28-4-1997 in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1995. Accordingly, all the appeals were heard together and it is proposed to dispose of the same by common judgment.2. Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 1997 is filed by original accused Nos. 4 and 18. Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 1997 is filed by original accused No. 5 and Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 1997 is filed by the State against acquittal. In all 36 accused were tried in the Sessions case and except for appellant Nos. 4, 5 and 18 all of them were acquitted.3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10-11-1994 there was quarrel between Nisha (P.W. 5) wife of deceased Gautam Khadse; Laxmibai (accused No. 7); Mathurabai (accused No. 6) who is mother-in-law of Laxmibai on account of washing of clothes at the river. On the next day, that is to say, on 11-11-1994 at about 12.00/ 01.00 p.m. Laxmibai (accused No. 7) and Mathurabai (accused No. 6) came to the house of Tulsabai (P.W. 3) in connec...
Mrs. Kalpana Madhusudan Paranjpe Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR426
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner, an Officer of the B.E.S.T. undertaking of respondent No. 1 is aggrieved by the order of her dismissal from employment dated 19th September, 1997. She has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Articles 14 and 21 and the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1 888 praying for setting aside the order of dismissal and for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. The petitioner being not governed by the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 is not covered by the definition of 'employee' and therefore, she could not approach the Labour Court constituted under the said Act for the relief which she is seeking for the first time before this Court.2. The petitioner joined the service of the undertaking in March, 1977 as a Clerk. In April, 1 992 she was promoted to the post of Officer Grade AG VIII and was posted in Materials Management Department. In October, 1996, she w...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maruti Mahadeo Dhongade and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC496; 2003(2)ALLMR275
ORDERD.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard Ms. Barve for the appellant, Mr. Railkar for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Shetye for respondent No. 2.2. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of a truck (petrol tanker) which on a highway dashed a motor car belonging to the respondent No. 1 from behind and caused damage to it. The truck was insured with the appellant. Motor Accident Tribunal on scrutiny of the evidence came to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was negligent and so came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 suffered a loss to the extent of Rs. 88,000/- on account of the accident, to his property viz., motor car. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 88,000/- was awarded. The respondent No. 2 has not filed an appeal and has accepted the liability.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued only one point before me viz., that the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 6,000/ - under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. No other point was canvassed. Section 14...
Parasmani International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT61Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant imported "Non-Alcoholic Bavaria Malt Beverage". The goods arrived on 6-3-98, Bill of Entry was filed on 16-4-98. The classification under the Customs Tariff was under sub-heading 2202.90.There was however a dispute on the ITC (HS) classification. The only available entry was 220290 00.10. The description against this entry was "Diabetic Beverages including Diabetic Syrup". The importers contended that this classification was not appropriate to the goods.The Commissioner of Customs made a reference to the DGFT on 20-1-98 and pennitted clearance of the goods against a bond. On record there was no reply to this letter. On 17-2-99 there was a letter from the DGFT to the appellant to the effect that these goods merited classification only under 220290 00.10.2. On the date of shipment of the goods the EXIM policy prescribed an SIL for clearance of the goods falling under this heading. However at the time of importation the goods were freely importable. On the observation th...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »