Mumbai Court February 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.
Narhar Anant Deshpande Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR878; 2003(2)BomCR845; (2002)3BOMLR413; [2003(97)FLR1137]; 2003(2)MhLj520
Marlapalle, J.1. This petition, under Articles 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution, involves an issue regarding the postof Assistant Head Master/Head Master, which is anisolated post, on the basis of the law laid down by theApex Court in the case Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. Stateof Bihar and others reported in : (1988)IILLJ66SC .2. The petitioner passed his B.A. degree in1959, completed Diploma in Education in 1961 and M.A.degree in 1970. He has completed Diploma in Educationat Graduates Basic Training Centre Dhulia conducted bythe Education Department of the Government ofMaharashtra. He came to be appointed as an AssistantTeacher in Sardar G.G. High School and Junior Collegewith effect from 10th of June 1963. From 1976 onwardshe was teaching to the higher secondary classes upto1980-81. One Shri. M.K. Lohar was Head Master of thesaid High School and Junior College since August 1979and on his retirement on 31st May 1981, Shri. V.B.Dixit, who was appointed as Assistant Head Master, cameto be pro...
Techno Fire Protection Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. Mtz Polyesters Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR466; 2002(3)BomCR533
ORDERPratibha Upasani, J.1. These two Notices of Motion, one taken out by the Plaintiffs Techno Fire Protection Services (P.) Ltd., namely, Notice of Motion No. 1056 of 2001 and the other taken out by Defendants MTZ Polyesters Ltd. being Notice of Motion No. 2218 of 2001, can be disposed of by this commonorder.2. The facts which are required to be stated for understanding controversy between the parties are as follows :There was a concluded contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, whereby, the Plaintiffs sold and delivered to the Defendants, fire protection equipment in accordance with the said contract, worth a total amount of Rs. 75,88,413.63. The goods were received by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs' case is that no grievance was made by the Defendants at that time with respect to the quality or quantity. The Defendants made part payment to the Plaintiffs of a sum of Rs. 60,00,000 between October, 1996 and March, 1997. The remaining amount of Rs. 15,88,413.63 was however ...
Dhanaraji Baburam Yadav and anr. Vs. Ramakant K. Dhanawade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR425; (2003)2BOMLR253; 2003(2)MhLj58
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioners are taking exception to the judgments and orders passed by Small Causes Court in Ejectment Application No. 715 of 1972 and consequential appeal decided by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court bearing Appeal No. 18 of 1988 in Obstructionist Notice No. 67 of 1983.2. The facts of the matter heed to be stated for understanding the controversy in better way. The Ejectment Application No. 715 of 1972 was filed under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act (for convenience referred to as the Act). It was treated to be a summary proceeding. When the decree was put to execution by decree holder, Kondiram Dhanawade, father of original defendant Ramakant Kondiram Dhanawade obstructed the execution proceedings by contending that he was residing in the said tenement as licenseesince 1972 though the suit was filed in the year 1972 and he was not participating in it as co-defendant. It is necessary to mention here that the said tenement was decla...
Annasaheb Tukaram Pandit Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR200
S.S. Parkar, J.1. Rule by consent.2. Rule is returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of respondents. Heard both sides finally. 3. By this writ petition, the order detaining motor vehicle belonging to the petitioner and suspending the registration of the vehicle bearing No. MH 23 H 5927 for a period of 60 days is under challenge. 4. The petitioner's private vehicle a minidoor rickshaw bearing No. MH 23-H-5927 was detained on 25-12-2001 for illegally carrying passengers without permit. It is contended that under section 53(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, registration of the vehicle in question cannot be suspended without serving notice to the owner of the vehicle. Vehicle in question was detained on 25-12-2001 and on the next day order of suspension was passed without serving requisite notice under section 53(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On behalf of the respondents, reply has been filed dated 30-1-2002 by respondent No. 2 in w...
Bhimrao Tukaram Shinde Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR383
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mr. Vikas Mahangare, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.A. Patil, learned A.G.P. for respondents.2. The petitioner was appointed in the Veterinary Department of Government of Maharashtra as a Stockman on 9-4-1947. He was confirmed in the said post from 1-9-1956. The petitioner was promoted as Extension Officer, Animal Husbandry Department by order dated 12-12-1962. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred to Zilla Parishad, Sangli vide order dated 15-5-1964 and was posted at Walwa, under Block Development Officer, Walwa District, Sangli as Extension Officer. The petitioner was ultimately allotted Zilla Parishad, Sangli with effect from 1-3-1971. It is the petitioner's case that he has put in service as Extension Officer, Animal Husbandry in the Government Department from 1-3-1962 to 30-6-1964 and in Zilla Parishad, Sangli from 1-7-1964 till 31-5-1983. The petitioner retired from 1-6-1983 on account of superannuation and has been getting regular pension...
Choughule Popatrao Annasaheb Vs. the Managing Director, the Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR429
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner has assailed the order of punishment dated 6.12.1989 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and subsequent order dated 17.9.1990 enhancing punishment by the Appellate Authority under the service rules applicable.2. The factual matrix of the case, can be briefly, set-out as under : The petitioner was appointed as A.P. Cotton Grader on 11.7.1979 and posted at Phaltan Zone in District Satara. He was promoted as J.R Grader on 11.7.1980. He came to be transferred from Phaltan Zone to Nanded Zone on 6.2.1987. On the very next day he was posted at Umari Sub-zone. On 1.1.1988 he was transferred from Umari to Karkheli Centre under Umari Sub-Zone in district Nanded.3. At the relevant time, one Shri M.J. Patil, J.R. Grader was posted at Hadgaon and he remained absent from 16.2.1987 to 18.2.1987 and therefore, the petitioner was transferred to Hadgaon during this period.4. On 12.4.1988 the Divisional Manager, Nanded, visited Karkheli Centre and noticed certain de...
Cce and C, Ahmedabad Vs. Ahmedabad Packaging Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT116Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Ahmedabad Packaging Industries Ltd., the respondent before us, was engaged in the manufacture of inter alia of tapes and fabrics of high density polyethylene. We are concerned in this appeal with the claim for refund that was filed on duty paid in excess on clearances of such tapes made between April 1986 and March 1992. The assessee had sought classification of these goods under Heading 39.20 of the tariff as tapes of plastic. The department was of the view that tapes were correctly classifiable under Heading 54.06 of the tariff as woven fabrics. The rate of duty on goods classifiable under tariff Heading 54.06 at the relevant time was higher than the duty payable on goods classifiable under Heading 39. The assessee paid the duty at higher rate after recording its protest.2. The assessee also appealed the classification that the department has decided. The Commissioner (Appeals), whose order was confirmed by the Tribunal, on appeal, held the goods to be rightly classifiable under ...
Balaji Tulsiram Chaudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR563; 2002(4)BomCR702; 2002(2)MhLj508
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, Gadchiroli, as also the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, in the proceedings arising out of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'the Act').2. Undisputed facts, giving rise to the petition, are that: On notice moving for no confidence motion against Shri B. T. Choudhari of village Mohazari, was move by one Shri Bodhaji Nikhure and some other members of the Gram Panchayat. The notice was presented to the Tahsildar, Armori, who, as per law, convened special meeting of the panchayat for consideration of the no confidence motion on 13-11-1997. It was presided over by the Tahsildar. Both the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch and other members participated in the meeting and when the motion was put to vote, the Tahsildar Ruled that motion was defeated or failed. He ruled accordingly that the motion for no confidence was not ...
Meghraj Raghobaji Nevle and ors. Vs. Additional Collector, Nagpur and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR840; 2002(4)BomCR728; 2002(2)MhLj576
V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the Order passed by respondent No. 2.- Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Kalineshwar, terminating the services of the petitioners. A short question, which is raised in this petition, is whether the Additional Collector, Nagpur, was competent to pass an order of termination by exercising the powers under section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act.2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are as follows: The petitioner's came to be appointed temporary with effect from 10-8-1987 by virtue of the order passed by the Standing Committee dated 24-3-1987. Even prior to the issuance of the said letter of appointment, the petitioners were in the employment of the Municipal Council and all of them had completed more than 240 days. Some of them had completed 4 years in service prior to the said letter of appointment being issued to them.3. It is submitted that suddenly the services of the petitioners were ter...
Goalkrishna Vaman Kamath Vs. the Corporation Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR473; 2002(3)BomCR506; [2002(95)FLR136]; 2002(2)MhLj876
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This writ petition challenges an order dated 13th May, 1998 passed by the Appellate Authority constituted under the provisions of the Corporation Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982, to dispose of the appeals assailing the orders passed by the Appellate Authority. By the impugned order, the appellate authority has affirmed the order dated 14th November, 1997 passed against the petitioner, holding him guilty of misconduct by the Disciplinary Authority.2. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Manager at Chembur, Bombay Branch, of respondent Corporation Bank. He was there between the period from 4th June, 1983 and 1st December, 1984. During this period, the petitioner allegedly committed misconduct. The Article of Charge was framed against him and he was served with a charge-sheet with covering letter dated 26th March, 1986, calling upon him to submit his written statement within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »