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.
Damodhar Tukaram Khadse Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR847; (2003)2BOMLR582; 2003(1)MhLj602
R.S. Mohite, J. 1. Heard Shri Madkholkar, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Kankale, AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Ingley, Advocate for respondent No. 2. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges and seeks to quash and set aside his order of dismissal dated 4-4-1987 and further order dated 14-8-1987 passed in appeal by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, Amravati, rejecting the petitioner's appeal against his order of dismissal. 3. The facts of the case are as under : (a) On 24-12-1968, the petitioner was appointed as a Group Secretary. (b) On 24-12-1981, the petitioner was promoted as a Head Clerk. (c) On 9-9-1986, the charge sheet was framed against the petitioner, containing four charges. (d) On 20-11-1990, the petitioner filed his reply to the charges as framed against him in the charge sheet. (e) After due enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report in which only charge numbers 1 and 2 were held to be proved and charge numbers 3 and 4 were...
Manikgarh Cement Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR185; 2003(1)MhLj1022
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard Shri Manohar, Advocate for the petitionerand Shri Sonare, AGP for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition impugns and seeks to quash the orders dated 30-12-1985 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajura, in Revenue Case No. 6/NAP-34/84-85 and further order dated 23-10-1986 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Chandrapur in Revenue Appeal No. 67/NAP-34/85-86 and the order dated 29-11-1988 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, in Appeal No.NAP/34/Gadchandur-5/ 1986-87. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : (a) The petitioner company is in the business of manufacture of Cement. It has lands situated in Village Gadchandur, Ta. Rajura, District - Chandrapur. (b) On 4-2-1985, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajura, issued an order under Section 110 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, fixing the non-agricultural assessment in respect of lands owned by the company at Rs. 0.75 paise per square metre for industrial land and ...
Vidushi Wires Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(156)ELT168(Bom); 2003(1)MhLj1015
V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 1st October, 2002 passed by the second respondent (Exhibit-C) forfeiting the facility of payment of duty allowed on fortnightly basis under Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 (the 'Rule' for short) framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 37 of the claimed under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the 'Act' for short),FACTS2. The petitioner is a private limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing steel wire, having its factory at Anandnagar, M.I.D.C., Ambernath (Maharashtra). The product manufactured by the petitioners attracts payment of excise duty under the provisions of the Act. The petitioners were enjoying facility of payment of duty on fortnightly basis under Rule 8(4) of the Rules. The relevant Rule 8 reads as under :--'(1) The duty on the goods removed from the factory or the warehouse during the first fortnight of the month shall be paid by the 20th of that mont...
Arun S/O Balwantrao Mahurkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1685; 2003(1)MhLj927
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. Both these applications arise out of a criminal complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 against the applicants under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as the said Act.) After examining the complainant and two witnesses, the Magistrate issued process under Section 3(i)(x) of the said Act against the applicants. The applicants have filed separate applications challenging the order of issue of process. One of the grounds on which the issue of process is challenged is that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the matter or issue process since the jurisdiction to try the offence in question exclusively vests with the Special Court under the said Act.2. Learned Advocate for the applicants, after relying upon two judgments of the Single Judge of this Court, submitted before me that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain and take cognizance in the matter and it was, therefo...
Arjun Sambhaji Khade and ors. Vs. Mangal Ankush Kharmate and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR986; 2003(2)MhLj295
ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. In these proceedings an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune on 5th April, 2002 rejecting an appeal against an order passed by the Additional Collector, Satara on 5th October, 2001 is called into question.3. A resolution of no confidence that had been passed by 8 out of 9 members of a Grampanchayat against the first respondent was set aside by theCollector and the order of the Collector has been affirmed in appeal. The order of the appellate authority has been challenged in these proceedings. The seven petitioners and the first respondent are elected members of the Village Panchayat of Enkur. Elections took place in the year 2000 and the tenure of the elected body was until 2005. The first respondent was elected as Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat. On 23rd August, 2001, 8 members of the Grampanchayat moved an application before the Tah...
Dilip Mahendra Thapa and Two ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)110; 2003BomCR(Cri)1706; 2003CriLJ4280; 2003(3)MhLj864
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. The appellants are hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed against them by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 949 of 1996, whereby the appellants are convicted for offences punishable under Sections 392 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24/9/1994 P.W. Raju Chandwani was sitting in his office with Secretary, May Punjabi, the prosecution witness. It is alleged by the prosecution that at about 4.30 P.M. or so, the appellants came armed with revolver, choppers and at the point of these weapons, looted cash of Rs. 15,000/- from P.W. Raju Chandwani. The appellants, as per prosecution case, sat in a car and ran away from the spot. The number of the said car was noticed by Chandwani. Chandwani ...
Shamrao Narayan Wankhede Vs. Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)MhLj814
A.P. Shah, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Sanitary Inspector cum Food Inspector in the office of the 1st respondent Municipal Council Saoner with effect from 5th January, 1959. He was placed under suspension by the Standing Committee of the respondent No. 1 on 17th January, 1976 and a charge-sheet containing 10 charges was issued to him. The Standing Committee constituted an Enquiry Committee consisting of Shri M.B. Baswar, President of the Municipal Council, Shri Jageshwar Gupata, Vice President of the Municipal Council, Shri Bhalchandra Patil, Shri Murlidhar Pure and Shri Sadashio Gaidhane. The petitioner raised objection for inclusion of Shri Jageshwar Gupta and Shri M. B. Baswar in the Enquiry Committee on the ground that they were biased against the petitioner, but the said objection of the petitioner was not accepted by the Committee. In the course of enquiry one of the members of the committee Shri Bhalchandra Patil entered the witness box and gave evidence against the ...
Vishnu Vijay Packagers (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR35; 2003LC557(Bombay); 2003(158)ELT132(Bom)
Vijay C. Daga, J.1. The petition is directed against the action of the Respondents in claiming, demanding and/or trying to recover import duty on the 'Dival Multi-layer Coater machine', imported by the Petitioners without affording benefit of the exemption Notification No. 125/86. THE FACTS 2. The facts in narrow compass are that Petitioners had imported a 'Dival Multi-layer Coater machine' which was fully covered by Entry No. 32 of Exemption Notification No. 125/86, dated 17-2-1986. On 13-4-1987 the petitioner had filed a Bill of Entry for warehousing of the said machines, claiming benefit of exemption Notification No. 545 of 1986. On 15th December, 1987 the petitioners filed an ex-bond Bill of Entry for clearance of the said machine from warehouse for home consumption and once again claimed the benefit of the said Exemption Notification No. 125/86. 3. On 22nd December, 1987, the petitioners once again requested the Respondents to assess the said Bill of Entry stating that the draft t...
Vithal Mhatarba Muluk Through His Heirs and ors. Vs. Indubai Bandu Mul ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR710; 2003(3)BomCR294
S.A. Bobde, J.1 The petitioners are the heirs of Vithal Mhatarba Muluk, who claimed to be a tenant of the agricultural land admeasuring 2 H, 5 R. situate in gat No. 2418 of Village Chas, Taluka Khed. The respondent No. 2 Patilbuwa is his brother.2. The respondent No. 1 Indubai Bandu Muluk claims to have purchased the land from respondent No. 3 Mohanlal Himmatlal Kataria by a sale deed. The petitioner made an application on 27th December, 1979 praying for restoration of possession of the land in question. He also claimed an entitlement to purchase the said land under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, for short 'the Bombay Tenancy Act'. 3. According to him he and his brother were wrongly dispossessed after 1st April, 1957. This application was decided by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal on 24th February, 1982. The tribunal held that the petitioners were not tenant. They preferred an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed t...
Vinaysingh S/O Kisansingh Rajput Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR786
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This Petition was filed in June, 1988 by the petitioner when he had completed First year M.B.B.S. course successfully but, by which date, the respondent No. 1 - State Government, had passed an order on 11th of May, 1988 holding that the petitioner did not belong to the particular Denotified Tribe, under which he had obtained the admission to the medical course. It is this decision of the State Government, dated 11th May, 1988, which is sought to be challenged by filing this Petition. Respondent No. 1 is the State Government through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department. The impugned order is signed by the Deputy Secretary of that Department. The second respondent is the Dean of the Government Medical College at Aurangabad where the petitioner was prosecuting his studies at the relevant time.2. The Petition came to be admitted on 10th June, 1988 and interim relief came to be granted in terms of prayer Clauses (C) and (D) of the Petition whereby the respondents were...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »