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.
State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Station House Officer of Poli ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)882
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Dhote, learned Additional PublicProsecutor for the appellant, and Shri Gupta, learnedCounsel for the respondent.2. The State has filed the instant appeal against thejudgment and order dated 18.10.1989 passed by theAdditional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.70/1996 whereby respondent is acquitted of the offencepunishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as follows :The respondent and deceased Ramesh were theresidents of village Banpuri and their agriculturalfields were adjacent to each other. It is alleged thatthere was a quarrel between them for taking water fromcanal. The incident occurred on 6.12.1985. It isalleged that on that day deceased Ramesh was sitting atabout 9.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on the flag post. PW 4Doma and Raghoba came there and also sat on the platformof the flag post. After taking meal, people of thevillage normally used to assemble near the flag post forchitchatting. On the day of in...
Chintaman Ramaji Mahakalkar Vs. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Par ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR658; 2003(3)MhLj438
R.K. Batta, J. 1. The petitioner claims seniority over respondent No. 3 and seeks to quash the orders dated 12-10-2000 and 30-11-2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 Education Officer vide which the respondent No. 3 was held to be senior to the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks quashing and setting aside of the communication dated 1-2-2001 issued by the respondent No. 1 granting approval to the services of the respondent No. 3 as in-charge Head.2. The petitioner is a primary school teacher in respondent No. 2 School. The petitioner joined respondent No. 2 School from 1-7-1972 and at that time he possessed qualification of SSC, D.Ed. He, therefore, claims that he was eligible and qualified for appointment as Assistant Teacher and continues to be in uninterrupted service of respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 3, though initially appointed from 13-10-1971, yet he did not possess the requisite qualification. According to him, respondent No. 3 acquired D. Ed. Qu...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Chawla Interbild Construction Company Private ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR596; 2003(3)ARBLR461(Bom); 2003(3)MhLj889
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners, by the present Petition, impugn the Award dated 26th December 1998. It is not necessary to go into all the controversies considering the challenges to the award. Though the arbitral clause was invoked before coming into force of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the said Act') and as the arbitral clause was same and/or similar to the clause interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of Thysesen Stahlunim GNHB v. Steel Authority of India, : AIR1999SC3923 , the Petitioners have invoked the provisions of the said Act. Consequently, the challenges are restricted to those as contained in Section 34 of the said Act. After arguments on behalf of the petitioners, written arguments have been filed. The claims and the counter-claims were the subject-matter of submission to arbitration by the parties. The Arbitral Tribunal has decided only claims and counter-claims which were submitted for decision.2. The first challenge, as raised by ...
Dionisio N.F. Carvalho Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ152CAT
1. By the present O.A. the applicant is challenging the notification dated 11.10.2001 issued by Respondent No. 1 appointing Respondent No. 4 i.e. V.T. Thomas of the State Forest Service of Goa to the Indian Forest Service with immediate effect.2. The applicant was initially appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forests on adhoc basis vide order dated 20.1.1987 and has been working as Assistant Conservator of Forests/Deputy Conservator of Forests in the Goa Forest Department. The applicant was appointed on regular basis as ACF from 8.8.1990 and was confirmed on 8.8.1992 vide order dated 1st September, 1999 after completion of two years of probation. The State Forest Service Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF for short)/Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF for short) is the feeder grade for promotion to the IFS, The promotion to the IFS from the feeder grade is regulated by the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 and Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulati...
Sh. Vasudev Ganesh Gokhale Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ49CAT
1. The applicant has impugned the action and letters issued by the respondents dated 29.8.1996, 4.9.1996 and 30.8.1996 (Annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3), respectively. By these orders, the respondents have ordered and recovered the over payments made to the applicant since 1988 which the applicant has submitted has been done from his retirement dues.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Carriage and Wagon Khalasi with the respondents on casual basis on 13.3.1957. He was regularised on 1.10.1957. He was later promoted as Car Attendant in 1961 and as Ticket Collector in 1963. He has stated that he was thereafter, promoted as Guard in 1974 and retired from service in that post on superannuation on 31.8.1996.3. Mr. D.V. Gangal, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that just two days before the applicant's date of retirement, the respondents have issued the letter dated 29.8.1996 and thereafter have recovered an amount of Rs. 56,008/from the ...
Krishna Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ133CAT
1. This application is regarding promotion to the post of Additional Director General of Works in Military Engineering Service (MES). The applicant is aggrieved that he has not been promoted to the post of Additional Director General of Works which has been vacant since 1.7.2002 only on the ground that the applicant is left with less than three months of service before superannuation. He has therefore challenged the panel dated 6.9.2002 whereby two officers namely Shri Suresh Dhiman and Shri D.S. Saxena have been promoted.2. The applicant is Civilian Group 'A' officer of M.E.S. department of Ministry of Defence and is presently working as Chief Engineer and is posted in the office Panel of Arbitrators (Pune). He was directly appointed to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in 1962 and was thereafter promoted as Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer in August 1988 and November, 1995 respectively. Finally he was promoted as Chief Engineer on 9/10...
Alpa Laboratories Vs. Deputy Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR427; 2003(4)MhLj498
1. In this petition, two orders passed by theCustoms authorities under Section 111(d) of theCustoms Act read with Section 3 of the Imports andExports (Control) Act, 1947 seeking to confiscate theimported Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride have beenchallenged. By the impugned orders, the Petitionershave been given the option to redeem the confiscatedgoods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.1,65,000/( Rs.1,50,000/ + Rs.15,000/).2. The facts relevant for the present petitionare as follows:-The Petitioners inter alia manufactureOxytetracycline capsule for which OxytetracyclineHydrochloride is a raw material. On or about the3rd February, 1989, the Petitioners entered into acontract with a foreign supplier for import of 1000kgs. of Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride (the saidgoods for short). In April 1989, the foreignsupplier air shipped 100 kgs of the said goods and onarrival of the said goods, the Petitioners filed abill of entry on 6/4/1989, seeking clearance of thesaid goods as OGL item, being r...
Uday Bajirao Khairmode Vs. Chairman, N.B. Education Society and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR902; [2003(96)FLR1100]; 2003(2)MhLj400
ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The fifth respondent was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak on 30th June, 2000. The order of appointment states that the appointment was for the period from 1st July, 2000 until 30th April, 2001. However, the order of appointment thereafter provides in Clause 5 that upon the completion of satisfactory service of three years, the fifth respondent would be eligible for being appointed on a regular basis as an Assistant teacher in the regular pay scale. In Clause 7, the appointment order has provided that the remuneration that would be paid to the fifth respondent would be at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month. Clauses 5 and 7 are relevant because the order of appointment states that it has been issued in pursuance of a Government Resolution dated 13th October, 2000 of the State Government. On first reading, it would not appear to be ...
The Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. the Assistant Registrar, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR509
R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner Agricultural Produce Market Committee sent cases for recovery of market fee, supervision charges etc. to the Tribunal under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter called, the 'A.P.M.C. Act'). However, the respondent No. 1, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tumsar returned the said cases in pursuance of the communication of the respondent No. 3 Director of marketing with a direction to deposit the arbitration fees chargeable under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner represented to the concerned Authorities that the fees payable under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act could not be levied in such cases since neither the said A.P.M.C. Act nor the Rules provide for charging of fees as contemplated by the respondents. Inspite of this, the respondents continued to toe their line of thought and directed the petitioner to deposit ...
Sitaram Mahadu Shelke and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR510
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. This Petition is filed by two villagers of village Wakadi, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar, challenging the decision/Notification dated 18.6.1999 issued by the Collector, Ahmednagar under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short, 'the Code' hereinafter), constituting certain Survey Numbers, namely; 489, 898, 978 to 980, 1048, 1049, 1058 to 1111, 1118 to 1123, 1126 to 1128 and 1207; into a separate revenue village. These Survey Numbers are also supposed to form a Wadi, known as Sambhaji Nagar and in view of this notification, that Wadi will be now known as village Sambhaji Nagar. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the petition are State Government and its Deputy Secretary in Revenue Department, Respondent No. 3 is Collector, Ahmednagar and Respondent No. 4 is the Village Panchayat.3. The contention of petitioners is that this decision was taken by Respondent No. 3 - Collector, in view of the agit...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »