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.
Nagorao Piraji Shrirame Deceased Through L.Rs. Sakhubai Nagorao Shrira ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR868; 2002(5)BomCR275; (2002)3BOMLR227; 2002(3)MhLj524
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard Shri A. H. Vaishnav, learned Advocate for the petitioner learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri A. M. Dabir, Advocate for Baliram Vithalrao Shrirame who has been allowed to intervene by order of this Court dated 21st January, 1997 passed in Civil Application No. 3610 of 1993.2. The petitioner filed a return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, the said Act) as amended by Maharashtra Act No. XXI of 1975. In pursuance of the said return, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (for short, S.L.D.T.) held an inquiry into the holding of the petitioner and by an order dated 21st January, 1976 held that the petitioner was a non-surplus holder. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad issued a notice of suo-motu revision under Section 45 of the Act and after notice to the petitioner and after hearing him set aside the order dated 24th January, 1976 passed by the S.L.D.T. ...
Bomi Jal Mistry and ors. Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom342; 2002(3)ALLMR749; 2002(4)BomCR13
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Rule. Counsel appearing for the respective Respondents waive service. By consent of all the Counsel, this petition was heard for final disposal forthwith.2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai dated August 6, 2001, on Application No. J-4-100/ 2000 purported to be under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity), authorizing and acceding sanction to the Respondent Trust for alienation and/ or to lease out the trust property (excluding fire temple and open land surrounding the fire temple) and development as contemplated in the agreement entered by the Trustees with Respondent No. 6 dated November 14, 2000 for consideration of Rs. 3.75 crores and further Rs. 30 lacs to be paid by Respondent No. 6 to the trust for carrying on necessary repairs to the existing fire temple and ...
Suresh Manherlal Mehta Vs. Icds Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR58; 2002(4)BomCR10
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. This appeal is filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 6 November, 2001, in Insolvency Petition No. 6 of 2001. By the said order, the petition filed by the petitioning creditor for adjudicating the appellant-debtor as an insolvent was allowed, and the prayers made by the petition were granted. 2. The petitioning creditor approached this court by filing Insolvency Petition No. 6 of 2001 for an order of adjudication against the appellant-debtor, inter alia, stating therein that he was indebted to the petitioning creditor in the sum of Rs. 38,54,087.32 along with interest of Rs. 24,41,675 at the rate of 18% per annum for 29 August, 2000, until payment under insolvency notice No. N/82 of 2000 dates 26 September, 2000. An award was obtained by the petitioning-creditor on 24 February, 1999, in arbitration proceedings No. A.P. 120 of 1998 in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, between ICDS Limited and Star Precision Electronic...
Suprabhat Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. Span Builders ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR257; (2003)2BOMLR521; 2002(3)MhLj837
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. By the impugned order dated 17th October, 2001, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel, has dismissed the application filed on behalf of the applicants praying that the plaint be rejected under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that a notice prior to the institution of the suit, under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, had not been given. The first applicant, it is an admitted position and fact, is a Co-operative Housing Society duly registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The first applicant is a Tenant Co-partnership Housing Society, (within the meaning of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961). Tenant Co-partnership Housing Societies are housing societies which hold the land as well as the buildings either on l...
Ramzanali GulamhussaIn Ramodiya and ors. Vs. Hamida Karim Ramodiya and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom526; 2002(3)ALLMR392; 2002(4)BomCR575
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This appeal is filed against an order passed by the learned single Judge on October 9, 2001 in Chamber Summons No. 562 of 2001 in Execution Application No. 20 of 1998 in Appeal No. 575 of 1994 in Suit No. 3033 of 1994. The Chamber Summons was taken out on behalf of the applicants/original defendants praying for an order of stay of sale of immovable property fixed on April 27. 2001 as per the proclamation issued by the Sheriff of Bombay on April 19, 2001 and for consequential reliefs.2. As stated in the affidavit-in-reply in support of Chamber Summons, the respondents had filed a suit, No. 3033 of 1994, against the appellants, which was settled by appointment of mediator and consent decreewas passed on April 22, 1996. As per the said decree Ramodiya Mansion II was to be sold and the respective shares were to be paid to respondents. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-applicants before the learned single Judge that the consent decree was in res...
P.M.A. Hakeem, Chairman, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR389; 2002(4)BomCR564
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by a Staff Association called 'The Co-operative Textiles Mills Limited Staff Association' for being impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed by Shri P.M.A. Hakeem, Chairman of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and other Trustees against the U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Federation'). The suit is for a recovery of approximately a sum of Rs. 12 crores which are meant for the terminal benefits of the employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation out of which Rs. 10,52,00,000/- is due. The amount is invested by the plaintiffs in bonds issued by the federation.2. The Federation has about 11 member mills of which one of the mill is at Bulundshar. The applicant who seeks to be impleaded as a defendant is not even one of the member mill of the defendant Association but claims to be a Staff Association of one of the member Mill i.e. the Bulundshar.3. This Co...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sheshrao Ganpatrao Shelke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR527
A.B. Naik, J.1. These First Appeals are filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Latur on 28th February, 1984. By notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') published on 24th August, 1978, the lands of the claimants as indicated below were notified for acquisition for Talegaon Percolation Tank and following lands covered in this group of appeals, situated at village Talegaon Tq. Ahmedpur Dist. Latur were taken in possession :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sr. No. F. A. No. LAR No. Gut No. Extend of landacquired H. Areas--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. 161/86 27/81 27/3/C 5 -202. 162/86 73/81 24 2 -303. 163/86 74/81 3 1 -404. 164/86 75/81 27/A/C 1 -105. 165/85 76/81 27/B/2 2 -206. 166/86 77/81 27/C 2 -97. 167/86 214/82 28/1 1 -26----------------------------------...
Sukhdev Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: II(2003)DMC72
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellant/accused, in this appeal, is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, in Sessions Trial No. 18/1995, on 6.1.1997 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the accused Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for one year. The accused is also convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for 6 months. It was further directed that both the sentences should run concurrently.2. Facts :The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :The appellant/accused married Nirmala who was the daughter of Shripat Bapurao Raut, on 1.5.1992. The marriage was performed as per the customary rites at Abaji Maharaj Devasthan, Babhulgaon and afte...
Mahalaxmi Gems Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC58Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the acceptability of the value declared by the appellant of rough diamonds imported by it. Out of three lots that it imported, the value declared for one was accepted. The department was of the view that the value declared for the other two was excessive and proposed confiscation under Clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act. The goods were unconditionally exempted from duty by Notification 36/93. The importer waived issue of notice. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has reduced the value of the goods from the declared value of totalling Rs. 66,83,862/- to Rs. 32,40,540/- ordering the goods to be confiscated under Clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act but permitted them to be exported on payment of Rs. 5 lakhs. He also imposed a penalty on the appellant of Rs. 25 lakhs.2. The basis for the enhancement of the value ordered by the Commissioner is the opinion of the appraising officers of the custom house and the opinion...
Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT384Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Gowri Shankar, Member (T) - The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 8,11,950/- and penalty of Rs. 1000/-.2. The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. The stay application filed by the applicant contains no ground whatsoever on merits. All that it says is that the impugned order does not recognize the facts in the right perspective, the applicant has a prima facie case and there are number of decisions of the Tribunal in favour of the applicant.3. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 28A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules specifically requires the application of waiver of deposit to indicate reasons in brief in seeking stay. The reason that is furnished in the stay application is entirely insufficient for me to come t(c) a conclusion that any of the amount in question is not required to be deposited. The stay application does not even refer to the appeal except to say that it has been filed. I have no option to conclude that the applicant is not able to specify any groun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »