Mumbai Court March 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.
Ababai W/O Bapurao Patil, Died, Per Heirs and Legal Representatives, V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR616; (2002)2BOMLR345; 2003(2)MhLj956
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner andlearned Assistant Government Pleader for RespondentsNo.1 & 2.2. The petitioner filed a Return of his landholdings under the provisions of amended MaharashtraAgricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961,(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). An inquiry intothe Return was held by Surplus Land DeterminationTribunal (for short 'S.L.D.T.'). The S.L.D.T. after aninquiry, determined the holding of the petitioner and byan order dated 28th December, 1975, held that thepetitioner was holding land in excess of the ceilinglimit to the extent of 32 acres 32 gunthas. This orderof the S.L.D.T. was challenged by the petitioner byfiling an appeal under Section 33 before the MaharashtraRevenue Tribunal, Aurangabad (for short 'M.R.T.'). Byan order dated 31st March, 1976, passed in AppealNo.115/A/76, the M.R.T. dismissed the appeal. Beingaggrieved, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearingSpecial Civil Application No.4435/76 in th...
Maruti S/O Shiva Madne, Died, Through His L.Rs., Shankar S/O Marutirao ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR873; 2002(5)BomCR194; (2002)2BOMLR319
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. 2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of theland and the Respondent No.1 is the mortgagee inpossession. This fact, of course, is denied by theRespondent No.2, who claims the ownership. Theproperty, being an agricultural land, the petitionerfiled an application purportedly under Sub Section (2)of Section 103 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and AgriculturalLands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TenancyAct') for restoration of the possession to him. Theapplication was filed before the Collector, who assignedit to the Additional Collector, Osmanabad. The learnedAdditional Collector, by his order dated 29th December,1967, allowed the application and directed redemption.The Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before theDivisional Revenue Commissioner, Aurangabad, who by anorder dated 31st July, 1968, allowed the appeal. Thelearned Commissioner held that it is not within theambit of the Revenue Court to decide the owners...
Radha D. Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR424; 2002(4)BomCR44; (2002)3BOMLR719; 2002(3)MhLj25
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. Heard Mr. Deepak Chitnis, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.N. Bhatkal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. The petitioner was initially employed as clerk with Union Bank of India-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank') in the year 1964. She was promoted as officer in December, 1975. At the time of promotion the petitioner was working at Tardeo Branch. She was transferred to L. D. Ruparel Marg Branch at the close of business on 25th August, 1983. On 5th August, 1985 she was transferred to Veer Nariman Road branch from L. D. Ruparel Marg. The petitioner was chargesheeted of certain acts and omissions while working as an officer at Tardeo branch. The allegation against the petitioner was that an amount of Rs. 2,42,374.35 was allowed to be fraudulently withdrawn from the accounts maintained by M/s. Kapasi Co-operative Housing Society at Tardeo Branch for the period from 1981 onwards. According to the charges, 91 cheques which were ...
Mansi D/O Aniruddha Pusalkar Vs. Aniruddha Ramchandra Pusalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR262; II(2002)DMC477; 2002(3)MhLj808
H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. The appellants in these two Appeals are daughters of the sole respondent. As of now they are aged 22 and 20 years respectively. The respondent herein has filed a petition for divorce against the mother of the appellants i.e. one Smt. Smita Pusalkar. That proceeding is pending. During the pendency of that proceeding, both these daughters filed two separate petitions under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, the said Act) before the Family Court at Pune bearing Nos. P.C. 24 of 2001 P.C. 25 2001 respectively. Both these petitions came to be rejected by order dated 29th May 2001 passed by a learned Judge of the Family Court, Pune. The learned Judge took the view that the petitions did not disclose any cause of action. He took the view that since the daughters were no longer minors they could not claim maintenance under Section 20(2) of the said Act. He, therefore, rejected their petitions under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Pr...
Jaysen Jayant Rele and ors. Vs. Shantaram Ganpat Gujar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom462; 2002(6)BomCR415
R.J. Kochar, J.1. Like economics very often law also makes common sense difficult. The economists expound several theories and the lawyers formulate several propositions of law based on Judicial pronouncements and their own legal acumen. Otherwise the word 'family' is not difficult to comprehend as legislated in Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Bombay Rents Act). Both the learned counsel have cited innumerable Judgments in support of their respective contentions for interpretation of simple words 'any member of the tenant's family........' occuring in that section.2. In addition to the rulings of the Supreme Court and our High Court both the learned counsel have extensively read out to me a recent Judgment of the Appeal Court of United Kingdom reported in (1997) 4 All ER 991 Fitzpatric v. Sterling Housing Association. With respect to the Appeal Court I am not referring to the said judgment as in my humble opinion our social and ...
Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Grindlays Bank Employees Un ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ455Bom
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. Rule. By consent returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. 2. The petitioner bank is aggrieved by the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal below Exh. 19 and 29 in reference No.CGIT-2/49 of 2001. The industrial dispute raised and espoused by the respondent Union is pending before the Tribunal for adjudication. The aforesaid industrial dispute was referred for adjudication by the Central Government by its order of reference dated April 24, 2001. The schedule to the order of reference as subsequently amended reads as under:'Whether the action of the Management of Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank to transfer the Award Staff to R.M.C. located at Byculla in Mumbai is justified? If not what relief are the workmen entitled to?' It is clarified that in the original order of reference inadvertently singular term workman was stated. Since the said industrial dispute affected more than one workman, the order of reference came to b...
Chand Khan Gani Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR110
V.K. Barde, J.1. The Appellant is convicted by the learned Special Judge, Nanded, in N.D.P.S. Case No. 3 of 1990 of offence punishable under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for 2 years. Being aggrieved by this order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :P.S.I. Shaikh attached to Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded, was on patrolling duty on night between 21 and 22nd December, 1989. He received information that in Apsara lodge in Room No. 29, one lodger with his family was halting and he was having opium without licence. So, he reached the lodge in the company of two panchas and other constables at about 3.30 a.m. In the room, nothing was found, but in the attached bathroom of the room, in a cloth bag, there was opium. Sample of the opium was taken. Panchnama was prepared. The opium found was 3 kgs. 150...
Tiger Steel Engineering Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: [2002]127STC13(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1.The short issue raised in this petition iswhether a manufacturer can be given eligibilitycertificate under the dispersal of industries packagescheme of incentive, 1993 from a date other than thedate of commercial production even though the schemeprevailing at the relevant time provided for issuanceof eligibility certificate from the date ofcommercial production.2.The Petitioner No.1 Company is a Companyregistered under the Companies Act and is having itsfactory at village Kudavali, Tal. Murbad in theDistrict of Thane in Maharashtra.3. With an aim to achieve dispersal of industriesoutside Bombay and Thane area and to encourageestablishing of industries in the underdeveloped anddeveloping areas of the State, the Government ofMaharashtra, Industry, Energy and Labour Departmenthas announced schemes since 1964 with the concurrenceof all the departments of the State for grant ofincentive to such industries established in thebackward area of the State of Maharashtra. The s...
Kakoli Shyamlal Sircer Vs. Nagpur University and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR152; (2002)2BOMLR694; 2002(2)MhLj673
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction directing that the Order dated 27-9-1988 issued by the respondent No. 1 be quashed and set aside and that the petitioner may be declared to be appointed and the services of the petitioner as lecturer in Biochemistry may be confirmed from the date of her initial appointment by holding that the said post stood de-reserved.2. Facts :The Petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee which was duly appointed and her selection was approved by the Nagpur University arid she was appointed as a lecturer in the respondent College to teach a subject of Biochemistry w.e.f. 2-9-1985. The said appointment was made for the period of one year. The approval which was given by the University was also for a period of one year. The letter of appointment does not state that her appointment wasmade against the reserved category post. However, the approval which was granted to the said appointment sta...
Eagle Copters Ltd. Vs. Azal Azerbaijan Aviation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom284; 2002(3)BomCR758
ORDERPratibha Upasani, J. 1. This notice of motion is taken out by the plaintiff Eagle Copters Ltd. praying that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendants be ordered and directed to allow the plaintiff and/or its representative(s)/ surveyor(s) to inspect the helicopter which is leased out by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 under the lease agreement between them and which has been in turn sublet by defendant No. 1, Azal Azerbaijan Aviation Ltd. to defendant No. 2 Azal India Pvt. Ltd. It is also prayed that defendants be ordered to handover possession of the said helicopter to the plaintiff along with manuals and technical records and grant all necessary co-operation and assistance as may be necessary for ferrying the helicopter back to Singapore. It is also prayed that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants be injuncted from in any manner dealing with, disposing of alienating, encumbering, parting with possession and/or plying the helicopter except...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »