Mumbai Court November 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.
Mohan S/O Mahadeo Lohare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1677; 2003(1)MhLj940
D.D. Sinha, J. 1. The appellant/accused has challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 16-12-1989 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 1988, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The facts and circumstances which have given rise to the prosecution of the accused for the offence of murder, in nut shell, are as follows :On 5-2-1988 at about 12-15 p.m. the appellant had a quarrel with deceased Manik Shripat came on account of some money transaction. Mahadeo Doma Selokar (P.W. 1) had a tea-stall near the spot of incident. The appellant/accused took out a knife, which was kept by him under his pant near his waist, and assaulted the deceased Manik by inflicting blows with the said weapon. The accused thereafter went away from the spot with the knife in his hand which had blood stains.3. Mahadeo (P.W. 1), wh...
Bashir Abbas Kudale and ors. Vs. Mahadeo, the MaIn Deity in Temple and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom224; 2003(2)ALLMR1035; 2003(4)BomCR824; 2003(2)MhLj246
1. This appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Solapur dated 13-6-1988 in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1984. By this order the first Appellate Court has set aside the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit preferred by the respondents as barred by Jurisdiction and instead remanded the matter to the Trial Court for reconsideration in view of the observations made in the impugned Judgment. 2. Briefly stated, the disputed structure is situated at Gram Panchayat No. 537 of Village Mardi, District Solapur admeasuring 1234 sq.ft. The appellants had filed application before the Assistant Charity Commissioner bearing No. 174 of 1966, some time on 13th July, 1966, praying for the registration of the public trust on the premise that the suit property belongs to Shahi Masjid. This application was decided on 27th July, 1966 in favour of the appellants as there was no contest to that application. As a consequence of that order, the trust...
Sridhar Damodar Kamalaskar (Wani) Deceased by Heirs Babulal Sridhar Wa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR712; 2003(2)BomCR50; (2003)2BOMLR24; 2003(2)MhLj41
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Nasik, dated 27th October, 1988 by which the learned Commissioner has exercised revisional powers conferred on him under Section 7 of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short 'the said Act') and reversed the order of the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar had dropped proceedings for restoration of land in favour of the respondent No. 1, the tribal transferor. In brief the facts are as follows:--2. The respondent No. 1, Sonu Gunaji Dhumase, transferred his land admeasuring 5 H. 99 R. along with Pot Kharaba 0.12 R. in favour of the petitioners. The transaction is said to be dated 16th July, 1973, during the prescribed period.3. In proceedings under Section 36(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the respondent No. 3 made a statement to the Tahsildar that he is not willing to be restored possession of the land. The Additional Tahsildar therefore dropped the said proceedi...
Suryakant Baburao Khaladkar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR691; 2003(2)BomCR26; (2003)2BOMLR59; 2003(2)MhLj252
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 31st October, 1988 passed by the Collector, Pune. By the impugned order the Collector, Pune, has directed that the license in Form F. L. II be transferred in the name of the widow of the original Licensee. The original licensee was one Writ Petition No. 5375 of 1988 decided on 20-11-2002. (Bombay)Balkrishna Ramchandra Wadkar. His widow is Smt. Shobha Balkrishna Wadkar, the respondent No. 4 herein. 2. The licence in question that in Form F. L. II was issued by the Collector, Pune in the year 1973 in the name of Balkrishna Ramchandra Wadkar. He entered into a partnership on 12th July, 1979 with Suryakant and Baburao, the petitioners herein. The petitioners were recognised as partners under Rule 40 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, the relevant extract reads as follows :-- '40. Regulation of business of licensee. -- (1) No person shall be recognised as partner of the holder of a vendor's licence for the purposes of...
Clarinda D'Souza Vs. McCann Erickson India Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR992; 2003(4)BomCR292; 2003(2)MhLj373
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The above Chamber Summons have been taken out by defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and 8 respectively to have their names deleted from the plaint and proceedings of the above suit.It is not without hesitation that I have decided to dismiss the Chamber Summons. The decision is notwithstanding my inability to disagree with the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant Nos. 5 to 8 on merits. It is based entirely on the limited scope of Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The plaintiff was an employee of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 is the Senior Vice President and General Manager of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 4 is the President and Chief Operating Officer of defendant No. 1.Defendant No. 1 is a subsidiary of defendant No. 8. Defendant No. 8 holds over 90% shares in defendant No. I. Defendant No. 5 is the Executive Vice President Worldwide, R...
Mulik Hotel Private Limited and anr. Vs. Sicom Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR759
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This application is filed by the petitioners for the following relief;'Grant permission to the petitioners to deposit the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs in cash in the Court today only in view of the facts and the circumstances mentioned above, in the interest of justice.'2. It may be stated that the applicants of this Miscellaneous Civil Application had filed substantive petition being Writ Petition No. 3008 of 2002, inter alia, praying therein that a writ of mandamus be issued against the respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2 SICOM Limited and Maharashtra State Financial Corporation, respondent No. 3 directing them to provide a concrete proposal for 'one time settlement of the dues' of the petitioners and to act upon it. A prayer was also made by directing respondent No. 1 not to accept a bid of Rs. 145.21 lakhs as disclosed by the respondent No. 1 in its communication dated 26th July, 2002. Other prayers were also made in the petition.3. A term loan was advanced by t...
Prakash Sadashiv Waghmare and 2 ors. Vs. Anil Yashwant Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR217; (2004)106BOMLR332
A.B. Naik, J.1. Heard Shri P.M. Shah, learned Senior Counsel i/b Shri L.B. Pallod, Advocate for the Petitioners.2. The present writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. The present proceeding arises out of the suit being RCS No. 587/94 filed by the present Respondent-landlord claiming possession of a portion of property having Municipal House No. 389 situate at Chitale Road, Ahmednagar. The parties herein will be referred to as 'Defendants' and 'Plaintiff' respectively hereafter. The present petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is plaintiff.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff let out the suit properly to the defendant No. 1 on the monthly rent of Rs. 150/- + Rs. 6.50 electricity charges. After the death of plaintiffs father, his mother Pushpatai used to collect the rent from the tenants and used to issue receipts. The mo...
Transworld Shipping Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT137Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Manoj Sanklecha, learned Advocate for the appellants states that in this case the appellants had waived issue of show cause notice and after a hearing, the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai has passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 1.60 lakh on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. He states that the issue relates to not manifesting one container due to oversight for which application for amendment under Section 30(3) was filed. He further states that the penalty is not imposable in this case as there was no mens rea, it was a case of genuine error, the goods have not been confiscated, no penalty has been imposed on any individual and it has not been specified whether the penalty is imposed under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 112. He also states that Section 112 is not applicable and that Section 117 is the correct provision for non-filing of manifest. He cites the following case laws in his support :-Samrat Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Comm...
Gujarat ParaffIn Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT671Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri K.M. Makwana, learned Consultant appeared for the appellants and stated that the appellants imported Paraffin Wax under Bills of Entry No. 2161, dt. 7-1-1998 and No. 2368, dt. 9-1-1998. Under Notification No. 60/97 C.E. (N.T.), dt. 27-11-1997, the restriction limiting Modvat credit to 10% was lifted for the actual user. However, due to ignorance the appellants took credit of 10% credit initially.They have been denied credit of another 5% which they claimed later on.2. He also states that the mistake was not only made by the appellants but the assessing officer also did not rectify the mistake at the time of assessment.3. Shri A Shukla, learned S.D.R. appearing for the Revenue states that Rule 57G(5) requires that credit shall not be taken by a manufacturer after six months of the date of issue of any documents and therefore, the lower authorities have rightly denied the extra 5% credit taken by the appellants after six months.4. After hearing rival submissions and perusal of t...
G and Y Soap Works Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(108)LC222Tri(Mum.)bai
1. G & Y Soap Works, the appellant, manufactured soap on job work for Wipro Ltd., Aurangabad; the latter supplied to it the raw material required for the manufacture and, in pursuance of an agreement between the two, the appellant converted the raw material into cakes and returned them to Wipro Ltd. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has held that the value for assessment of the soap that the appellant manufactured ought to be the price at which Wipro Ltd. sold to its wholesale dealers.2. The notice issued in this regard to the appellant did not specify any particular ground for alleging that the value of the soap should be the wholesale price of Wipro Ltd. In his order, the Commissioner says that the transaction between the appellant and Wipro Ltd. cannot be between principals because there is no sale or purchase of the soap. He finds that the appellant paid duty on the soap as an agent of Wipro Ltd. Since the goods were sold from the depots of Wipro Ltd., to w...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »