Mumbai Court June 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.
V.G. Pradhan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ114CAT
1. The grievance of the applicant in this O.A. is to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 29.3.2000 and 16.8.2000 and to direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension of the applicant as on duty and not as dies non and to grant pay @ 95% in terms of Sub-rules (5), (8) of FR 54-B.2. While the applicant working as Income Tax Officer in Mumbai, inspection of his work revealed several short comings with regard to the assessment orders passed by him. After receiving his explanation and presenting the case he was placed under suspension with effect from 19.4.1984. A charge-sheet was issued to him and thereafter a regular inquiry was held and finally the disciplinary authority passed order on 28.1.1987 imposing the penalty of removal from service on the applicant. The applicant had challenged the same before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 26/88 which was allowed by order dated 8.8.1991 on the ground that the copy of inquiry report had not been served to the officer. The respond...
Small Industries Development Bank of India Vs. Shri Niranjan Ayurved B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR154; 2002(4)MhLj859
ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The petitioner, which is the Small Industries Development Bank of India, lent and advanced a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the respondent in pursuance of a loan agreement dated 18th May, 1996. The loan was repayable in 12 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 1,25,000/-, each after a moratorium of three clear months from the date of the first disbursement. The loan agreement provides that the petitioner would be entitled to charge interest @ 20% p.a. on the principal amount of the loan outstanding from time to time. 2. The respondent defaulted in the payment of instalments of the principal which had fallen due on and from 1st July, 1996, and in the payment of interest from 1st June, 1996. A statutory notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, was issued by the petitioner to the respondent on 14th May, 1999. In response to the notice, the respondent, by its letter dated 14th June, 1999 disputed the claim and contended that security in the form of shares of ...
Sanganbassappa Channappa Manikshetti Trust (by Its Trustees Shri Eknat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR1023
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to theorder passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,Pune dated June 30, 1986 in RevisionNo. MRT.SH.II.1/86 (TEN 8 /36/85) Pune.2. Briefly stated, the land bearing Gat Nos. 830,824 and 807 situated at village Kini, TalukaAkkalkot, District Solapur was owned bySangabassappa Manikshetty. Some time in the year1941, the said Sangabassappa Manikshetty by hisWill created a public trust in respect of thesubject property and also provided maintenance toher widow Nillawabai from the income of the saidland of the trust. The said SangabassappaManikshetty however, leased out the suit land toone Shivlingappa viz. father of the RespondentNos. 1 and 2 and husband of Respondent No. 3 hereinin the year 1950-51. It has come on record thatin the Village Record mutation entry has beenmae on 15-2-1954 to indicate that the subjectproperty is a trust property. The saidSangabassappa Manikshetty however, expired on3-11-1995, leaving behind widow Nillaw...
Ramesh Shridharpant Pande Vs. Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR804; 2003(2)BomCR867
P.S. Brahme, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order and resolution of Standing Committee of respondent No. 1 Municipal Council, Achalpur, dated 10-8-1987 selecting the respondent No. 2 for the post of Ayurvedic Vaidya as also the order of Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, dated 28-10-1987 in Revision No. 10-A/87-88 confirming the selection of respondent No. 2.2. The relevant facts necessary for our consideration for deciding the controversy involved in this petition are as under :-The Municipal Council, Achalpur, having decided to establish Ayurvedic Dispensary at Achalpur, sought an approval of the Regional Director of Municipal Administration for creation of necessary posts, viz., (1) Vaidya (Ayurved), (2) Compounder (two) and (3) one post of a peon. The qualification for the post of Vaidya (Ayurved) was stated to be Vaidyacharya Degree Course of six years. The Regional Director of Municipal Administration granted requisite approval fo...
Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. Paisa Fund Glass Works ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR5; 2002(5)BomCR461
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs Co-operative Bank inter alia for declaration that the 2,04,000 bottles manufactured by defendant No. 1 pursuant to the order placed by defendant No. 9 are validly pledged to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also sought a decree for delivery of possession of 2,04,000 bottles which are the subject matter of the suit from the defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 9 and in the alternative for a direction to defendant Nos. 1 to 8 to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 7,66,325.90.2. At the outset Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs stated that he is electing to press the reliefs in prayer Clause (d) i.e. payment in the sum of Rs. 7,66,325.90 on the ground that it is not certain whether the bottles which are the subject matter of the transaction entered into sometime in the year 1981 may not be in the possession of the defendant No. 1 who has wrongfully converted the bottles to their own use.3. The defendant Nos. 1 to 8 have not fil...
Vishwambhar S/O Rajaram Ture and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)280; 2002CriLJ4581
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order of conviction and sentence in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 1995 for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 (so far as all the Appellants are concerned), and Section 201 read with Section 34 (so far as Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 are concerned) of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned order is dated 8th Oct. 1996 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge at Latur, before whom all the Appellants, along with one more accused i.e. Smt. Kesharbai (Accused No. 6), wife of Accused No. 1, were arrayed as accused and she has been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On admission of this appeal, bail application of Accused Nos. 1, 2 and was rejected and Accused No. 3 and 5 were enlarged on bail. Thereafter accused No. 4 was also enlarged on bail and the accused Nos. 3 to 5 continued to be on bail even as at present. Before we proceed to deal with the facts of this case, it would be relevant to record the r...
Krishnaji Shankar Moghe Vs. Sitaram Gangadhar Shende
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR393; 2003(1)MhLj233
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent the rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 31st January, 2002 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 412 of 2001. By the impugned order, the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of his original application for eviction of the respondent from the suit premises. The dismissal has been on the ground that by the proposed amendment, the petitioner is trying to produce further evidence which was not brought on record by the petitioner when he had opportunity to produce the same. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submitted that the petitioner by an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code has proposed to amend the original application for eviction by bringing on record certain events which had occ...
Smt. Vatsala Shankar Bansole Vs. Shri Sambhaji Nanasaheb Khandare and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom57; 2002(4)ALLMR374; 2002(6)BomCR126
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. None present for the respondent No. 2, though served. The notice was specifically issued to the respondents for final disposal of the matter and accordingly when the matter was taken up for final hearing on Monday last, by consent the same was adjourned for final hearing today, and accordingly the Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 were heard. Perused the records.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 8th August, 2001, passed in special Civil Suit No. 200 of 2000 under Exh. 35-A by the trial Court. By the impugned order, the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for extension of time to deposit the amount which the petitioner was required to deposit under the decree dated 6th July, 2001 in the said suit consequent to the suit for specific performance of the agreement between the parties having been decreed in favour of the petition...
Hasan Imam Inamdar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj682
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties in context with the evidence on record.2. The appellant is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Special Court for N.D.P.S. Cases in Special Case No. 137 of 1997.3. The prosecution case in brief can be stated as mentioned hereunder.P.I. Patel received the information on 9.12.96 at about 12.30 p.m. when he was present in Narcotic Cell of Azad Maidan Police Station. The information was that the person named Hasan Inamdar was likely to attend Hanuman Mandir at Hanuman Mandir Road, Khar for selling narcotic drug between 4.00/4.30 p.m. on the same day. As per the prosecution case, PI Patel reduced the said information in writing in information book and after drawing the extract of information personally delivered the same to Assistant Commissioner of Police as well as Deputy Commissioner of Police, Narcotic Cell. Thereafter panch witnesses were summoned. The information was disclosed t...
Kiran K. Gujar and ors. Vs. Pradip B. Kasavkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR109
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the 12th Additional District Judge, Pune dated 19th September, 1998 in Civil Appeal No. 243 of 1994. 2. The petitioners are tenants in respect of premises No. 24, New Bazar, Khadki, Pune. The respondents filed a suit against the petitioners for recovery of possession of the demised premises under section 13(1)(l) and 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for the sake of brevity). The trial Court dismissed the said suit holding that neither of the grounds were established by the respondents. The respondents carried the matter in appeal before the District Court at Pune being Civil Appeal No. 243 of 1994. The Appellate Court on the other hand has allowed the appeal only on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement by the impugned order dated 19th September, 1998. The App...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »