Mumbai Court December 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.
Ramesh Shantaram Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1512; 2003(2)MhLj145
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal impugning the judgment and order dated 6th May 1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 426 of 1986. By the said judgment and order the appellant was convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to R. I. for ten years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default R. I. for six months.2. It is the prosecution case that on 9th November 1986, P.W. 1 P.S.I. Kadam received an information that one Ramesh Chavan (appellant) resident of Dattawadi colony which is under the Swargate Police Station, possesses and sells charas in his house No. 424 of Dattawadi. P.S.I. Kadam immediately summoned the panchas and proceeded towards the spot of offence. The raiding party noticed that in the open court yard of house, four persons were sitting together. They apprehended the persons. The appellant came to be searched and on the personal search of the appellant, in his hand, one plastic packet contain...
Harinarayan G. Bajaj Vs. Sharedeal Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom296; 2003(2)ARBLR359(Bom); 2003(4)BomCR139; 2003(2)MhLj598; MANU/MH/0864/2002
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Heard forthwith.In the course of arbitral proceedings which are pending, an order/decision came to be passed on 29th October, 2002. The petitioners had made an application under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Under Section 27 of the Act of 1996 a party with the approval of the Arbitral Tribunal may apply to the Court for assistance in taking evidence. By application dated 6th June, 2002, petitioner prayed that the Arbitral Tribunal may be pleased to apply to the Court for assistance in taking evidence on documents referred to in para 6(C)(II). Those documents were documents under No. 1 to 8 under the Heading (C)(II). In the alternative the petitioners prayed, that the Tribunal be pleased to grant relief and/or approval to the petitioner herein to make an application to the Court for assistance in taking evidence of the nature mentioned in the prayer earlier referred to. The Arbitral Tribunal heard the parties and thereafter held that the ap...
Damodar Amrutrao Deore Vs. Malegaon Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR792; 2003(2)MhLj231
V. G. Palshikar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the land acquisition proceeding commenced by the State in relation to his land on the ground that they are vitiated by reason of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act.2. Facts which are not disputed stated briefly are that the petitioner is the owner of some land bearing survey No. 42/2 measuring 50 ores. On 30-6-1988 the State declared its intention to acquire this land by issuing a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter notices under Section 6 was published. Then on 19-10-1989 notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued to the petitioner. The petition was filed on 18-11-1992 and it is averred therein that award under Section 11 has not yet been made. Consequently the entire proceedings are vitiated by reason of Section 11A. Section 11A clearly provides that the Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of ...
Girish Jantilal Vaghela Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)SLJ140(Bombay)
D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. M.S. Karnik, learned Counsel waives service for respondent No. 1 Mr. Girish Kulkarni, learned Counsel waives services for respondent No. 2. None for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 though served.2. The short question involved in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that as to whether petitioner falls with a category of 'Government servant', who was appointed as a Drugs Inspector in Medical and Health Department of respondent--administration, on contract basis, initially for a period for six months and was continued in the said post for over six years.3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as a Drug Inspector on 11th March, 1996 after holding an interview by 2nd respondent and finding him qualified for the said post. The petitioner's appointment was on contract basis for a period of six months or till the U.P.S.C. nominee joins the said post. Admittedly, petitioner...
Annaji Maroti Raut Vs. Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Vimukta Tribe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)MhLj612
A. P. Shah J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 31-10-2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 - Caste Scrutiny Committee whereby the caste certificate of the petitioner certifying that the petitioner belongs to Nomadic Tribe (Otari) has been declared as invalid. The petitioner is a Councillor of Nagpur Municipal Corporation and is presently holding the post of Dy Mayor. The petitioner had contested election for the post of Councillor from the constituency reserved for the Nomadic Tribes. The petitioner had filed his nomination form for the said constituency along with the caste certificate dated 3-7-1997 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Dy. Collector of Nagpur. The petitioner was declared elected as Councillor from the said constituency and thereafter he was elected as Dy Mayor. It appears that the 3rd respondent filed compla...
Skanska Cementation India Ltd. Vs. Bajranglal Agarwal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR879; 2004(2)ARBLR67(Bom); 2003(4)BomCR653
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Both the petitions are being disposed of by a common order as there are common challenges in both the petitions. The common challenges may be set out as under :(1) There was no agreement for Arbitration in writing between the parties. Consequently the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal is without jurisdiction.(2) The Arbitral Tribunal conducted the proceedings in Hindi, though a request was made to conduct them in English. Minutes of the order of the Arbitral Tribunal were made available to the petitioners as requested but were made available to the respondents as demonstrated by the respondents producing the minutes before this Court. It is further contended that though the proceedings were to be in Hindi, nevertheless an Award is passed in English. In these circumstances the petitioners were denied opportunity, of presenting their case. The Award is, therefore, liable to be set aside on that count. The petitioners were also denied the opportunity of opposing through Ad...
Shankar Kusha Bamane and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR796; 2003(3)BomCR865
V.G. Palshikar, J.1.By this petition, the petitioner who lost some of his land in acquisition for the Koyna project, has filed this petition for a direction to allot him the land measuring about 2000 sq. feet from Survey Nos. 105/3 and 105/8.2. The petition is thus filed only for the purpose of allotment of about 2000 sq. ft. of land as the petitioner is project affected person. This petition was filed in the year 1996. During the pendency of this petition, the State was directed to file additional affidavit. The same was filed in October 2002 in which the following statement is made.'At the outset, I submit that the petitioner has been given open land admeasuring 1200 sq. ft. on rental basis. Said land is in possession of petitioner, since 1965 and he has been paying rent thereof. I submit that new allotment of open land is stopped from 1994. Hence open land or gala cannot be made available.'In view of this statement quoted above, 1200 sq. ft. land has already allotted to the petition...
Devika Flatowners Association and ors. Vs. Pune Contonment Board and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR895; 2003(4)BomCR197
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Both these petitions are directed against the Resolution of the Cantonment Board, Pune passed on 20th August, 1986 compounding certain unauthorised constructions made by the respondent No. 2.2. It is worthwhile to note that the petitioners are the flat owners and occupants of the building constructed by respondent No. 2 and it is in respect of this building occupied by them that the aforesaid Resolution was passed. They want that Resolution be quashed. The reason for filing these petitions as given by the petitioner is that if at a later stage it is found that the Resolution impugned by these petitions was illegal for some reason, the moneys payable prior thereto may be recovered from the petitioners, respondent No. 2 being the builder the petition is based on apprehended injury. 3. Certain plots existed in the cantonment area of which construction was undertaken by the respondent No. 2 of a six storey building, in accordance with the plan approved by the appropria...
Pandurang Narayan Bashetti Vs. Western Maharashtra Development Corpora ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR790; 2003(4)BomCR200; [2003(97)FLR19]
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to grant him the revised pay scale according to 4th Pay Commission equivalent to that of the one granted to one Mr. Dhotre who along with the petitioner was appointed as Administrative Officer when the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Company Secretary.2. The claim of the petitioner is that there was an earlier litigation before this Court in W.P. No. 3362/88 in which a direction was issued directing them to appoint the petitioner in the service of the company. Accordingly on 9-9-1988 an order was issued appointing the petitioner as Assistant Company Secretary in the scale of Rs. 680-1250. Thus from 27-6-1985 the petitioner was working as Assistant Company Secretary. From the same day Mr. Dhotre was working as Administrative Officer in the scale of Rs. 680-1250.3. After implementation of the 4th Pay Commission Mr. Dhotre was fixed in a scale of Rs. 3000-4500 and the petitioner was fixed in the...
The Supreme Industries Ltd., P.C. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT451Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant at the relevant time was engaged in its factory at Taloja in the manufacture of film of polyethylene which it subsequently printed before clearance, which is either cleared to its other factory, or printed in the factory at Taloja before clearance. As a result of an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that printing of plain film did not amount to manufacture, the appellant filed price list in which it claimed valuation of the plain film in terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, i.e. based upon the cost of manufacture. The department has not so far objected to this mode of valuation. We are concerned in the appeal with the price list filed by the assessee on 25^th March, 1992, 30^th August, 1993, 26^th June, 1995 and 26^th October, 1995. All the price lists were provisionally assessed in terms of Rule 9B pending determination as to whether comparable prices for the same goods manufactured by other assessee were available or not. A notice was issued to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »