Mumbai Court April 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.
Madhuri Prakash Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR1106]; (2003)IIILLJ969Bom
V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated March 27, 2001 passed by respondent No. 2 i. e. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board, Pune. By this order the petitioner's services were terminated, Certain facts giving rise to the present petition will have to be noticed for proper adjudication of the questions raised before us by this petition.2. On July 26, 1982 the petitioner was appointed as judicial clerk in the office of the Estate Manager, Pune of the respondent No. 2 - Board. Since then she is working there under the respondent No.2. In October, 1992 the petitioner was prosecuted under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation that the petitioner demanded and attempted to obtain and accepted Rs. 100/- from one Shri A. D.Kadam as illegal gratification for issuance of refund of deposit cheque.3. On November 17, 1993 the petitioner's suspension was revoked and she was permi...
Prabhakar Madhav Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR871
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Village Grampanchayat, Sunderwadi, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. 1/3 of the members of the Grampanchayat issued a notice of motion of no confidence against the petitioner under sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Tahsildar under sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Act. Accordingly the Tahsilder convened a special meeting of the panchayat for considering the motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch on 13th November, 2001. The notice of the meeting to be held on 13th November, 2001 was despatched on the date of receipt of the requisition itself i.e. on 6th of November, 2001.3. Relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mandabai Balnath Rohom & others v. Ashok Fakira Chandar and others, reported in : 2002(2)BomCR772 . It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that not only is the notice of the meeting required t...
Prithviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh and anr. Vs. Patangrao Shripatrao Kadam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR343; 2002(5)BomCR539
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. Application No. 3 of 2000 has been taken out by the respondent No. 1, Chamber Summons No. 509 of 2000 and Application No. blank of 2002 have been taken out by the petitioner.2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the validity of the election of the respondent No. 1 as a member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the Constituency bearing No. 270 Bhilwadi-Wangi Legislative Constituency. The voting in the said constituency took place on 5th September, 1999 and the results was declared on 6th October, 1999. The respondent No. 1 has been elected by about 1700 votes. In the petition, the petitioner challenges the validity of the election of the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 is guilty of corrupt practice within the meaning of the Representation of People Act, 1951. In the election petition, the petitioner had alleged that the respondent No. 1 has committed corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 123, ...
Dnyanoba @ Dnyandeo Mahadeo Kamble Vs. Mukta Dnyanoba Kamble
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)42; 2002(5)BomCR552; 2002CriLJ4459; II(2002)DMC791
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Shri Warunjikar for the appellant, Shri Nighot appears for the respondent. 2. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 24th May, 1999 passed by the Family Court No. 4, at Pune, allowing a petition numbered as P.E. No. 1726 of 1996, which was filed by the respondent claiming maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:Respondent herein had filed the above petition in the Family Court on 27th September, 1996 claiming maintenance from the appellant. The appellant filed written statement and subsequently raised a preliminary objection on 3rd May, 1997 submitting that the marriage between the parties was not a solemnized valid marriage and that issue be decided first. At that stage, a criminal revision application was filed to this Court being Criminal Revision Application No. 234 of 1994. A learned Single Judge of this Court (Pandya J., as he then was), by an order dated 22nd Se...
Tarapur Coatings and Adhesives Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC703
1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 81,612 arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has set aside the order of the Dy. Commissioner who had dropped the demand holding that the declaration filed by the assessees for availing capital goods credit was in order. The ground for acceptance of the department's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the items on which credit was availed, namely, S.S. Coils used for fabrication of reaction vessel and storage tanks was directly sent to job workers and was not either used as inputs nor as capital goods in the factory of the assessee.2. It is the submission of Shri M.H. Patil, learned Counsel that the ground taken in the order of the lower appellate authority was neither raised in the show cause notice nor was it the ground considered by the Dy. Commissioner and therefore the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is bad in law inasmuch as the order gives a reasoning de hors the show cause notice and t...
S.P. Goyal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)82ITD85(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been directed against the order of the CIT(A), Central-IV, dt. 5th July, 1999 for the asst. yr. 1993-94. The only ground of appeal is regarding the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs made by the AO and on appeal, confirmed by the learned CIT(A).2. The assessee is an individual and during the year under consideration, he had shown total income of Rs. 34,270 under the head 'Other sources'. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 27th March, 1996 wherein the total income was determined at Rs. 79,17,040. The AO had made the addition of Rs. 78,82,775 on account of unexplained credits pertaining to consignment sales. On appeal, the order of the AO was set aside by the CIT(A) vide his order dt. 14th Aug., 1996 with the following specific directions : (i) A finding of fact has to be given with reference to the total consignment value of Rs. 88,45,624 involved in 6 debit notes as to whether the same had been imported by Canon Steel (P) Ltd., and if so, how the ...
Basheer A. Abdulla, an Indian Inhbaitant, Residing at Nalitadkam House ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(83)ECC302
S.K. Shah, J.1. The petitioner, who is the brother ofdetenu Shri Mohammed Kunhi Abdulla, has impugned theorder dated 23.6.2000 passed by Respondent No.2, theSecretary to the Govt. ofMaharashtra, Home Dept.(Preventive Detention), and Detaining Authority,Mantralaya, Mumbai under subsection 1 of section 3of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange andPrevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974(hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act')2. The incident on the basis of which thedetention order was passed is, in short, as under :-On 12.01.2000 the officers of AirIntelligence Unit, Chhatrapati Shivaji InternationalAirport, Mumbai intercepted the detenu, who, onarrival at the Air Port by Air Flight No.AI 772, hadcame to the counter and misdeclared the contents ofhis baggage and declared value of the goods worthRs.7000/- only. His baggage were examined and hewas found to be carrying 227 Panasonic Mobile phone,227 batteries and 229 AC adaptors, totally valuedRs.13,63,000/-. The same were seized ...
Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., Bombay Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR15; 2002(3)BomCR427; (2002)3BOMLR651; 2002(2)MhLj948
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner/Bank had obtained a certificate under Section 101 against Rahul Bulk Carriers Proprietor Shri Prakashchandra A. Rai, Shri Sheshnath S. Rai and Shri Jagdishprasad B. Mistry. That certificate was issued on 10th May 2001. Pursuant to the certificate, the petitioner applied for attachment of a row -house owned by the judgment-debtor Shri Prakashchandra A. Rai. The Recovery Officer attached the premises. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application bearing Revision Application No.269 of 2001. The respondents filed objections on 14th March, 2001 before Special Recovery Officer contending that they had acquired right, title and interest in Flat No. VA-1 AND VA-2 in Tirupati Villa under an agreement dated 18th March, 2001 and the said agreements are registered on 18th April, 2001. It was an objection available under Rule 107 framed under the Co-operative Societies Act. The Special Recovery Officer after c...
Padminbai Ashok Yadle and ors. Vs. Mannan Ismail Shaikh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ247; 2002(3)ALLMR853; 2002(5)BomCR639; (2002)3BOMLR278; 2002(3)MhLj311
ORDERD.G. Karnik, J.1. The learned A.G.P. appears and waives service for respondent No. 4 and supports the petition. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are served, but are absent. As per the Bailiffs report, respondent No. 1 resides with the respondent No. 2. He is in the employment of the respondent No. 2. Hence notice to him is dispensed with.2. This petition is filed made by the heirs of Ashok Yedle, who died in a Motor accident on 26-5-1994, for transfer of the petition bearing M.A.C.P. No. 157 of 1997 pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short 'M.A.C.T.') Latur to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palghar, District Thane.3. The facts, in brief, can be stated thus :Ashok Vithal Yedle, the husband of the petitioner No. 1 died in a motor accident which took place at Nalegaon, District Latur. The vehicle involved in the accident was a Truck bearing No. MH-04-C-2577 belonging to respondent No. 2 and which was driven by his employee respondent No. 1 at the relevanttime. The ve...
Berner Shipping Inc., Bombay and anr. Vs. Mrs. Kala Ramchandran
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom432; 2002(3)ALLMR356; 2002(4)BomCR460; 2002(3)MhLj501
J.A. Patil, J.1. The plaintiffs have taken out this chamber summons and prayed for setting aside the order dated 20th October, 2000 passed by the learned Taxing Master, High Court, Mumbai directing the plaintiffs to pay Court fee of Rs. 75,000/- on prayer (f) of the plaint. The learned Taxing Master overruled the plaintiffs contention that the suit falls under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (for short, the 'Act') and ruled that it falls under Article 7 of Schedule I of the said Act. It is the plaintiffs contention that the subject matter of the suit is not susceptible to the monetary evaluation. They have, therefore, paid the Court fees on the footing that the value of the subject matter of the suit is Rs. 600/- under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Act. The short question which therefore, arises for the decision in this chamber summons is whether the present suit falls under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Act or under Article 7 of Schedule I of the Act.2. In Gulam Mohamed Mohame...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »