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.
Sukhbir Kaur Pritamsingh Sandhu Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR466
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In this first appeal, the appellant, who is the original plaintiff, seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 8-8-1996 of the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No. 133 of 1989.2. The suit which has been instituted by the appellant against the Nagpur Improvement Trust, which is the original defendant, is for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 06,19,312.50 towards the market value of the goods and by way of damages 'on account of illegal and high handed seizure of machinery and shed fitted with 300 G.C. sheets and allowing to rot in the open and also subject to theft of parts of machinery'. (Para Clause 3-A). The appellant had instituted an earlier suit being Special Civil Suit No. 165 of 1980 in the Court of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur, for the return of goods worth Rs. 1,30,159.50 or for the recovery of the aforesaid amount as reflecting the price of the goods and for damages. It appears that a plot of la...
S.S. Ahluwalia Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Ho ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR157
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This petition has been placed before this Court pursuant to an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16th March, 2001 titled S.S. Ahluwalia v. Union of India & others, : [2001]2SCR468 .2. In the wake of assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, there were several killings of Sikhs in Delhi and other parts of the country between October 31, 1984, and November, 1984. A Commission was also constituted headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.N. Misra (Retd.) which made an inquiry and submitted a report confirming killings of Sikhs.3. A petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 1429 of 1996, Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration, was filed in the High Court of Delhi claiming compensation to the dependants of the victims. The High Court of Delhi by a judgment dated 5th July, 1996, reported in 1996(III) AD (Del.) 333, allowed the petition and issued certain directions.4. Then another petition was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said petition it was all...
Mohammed Ali Mohmad Siddiqui Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4422
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties in context with the evidence on record as well as the judgment and order which has been assailed by way of this appeal. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 453 of the IPC and sentenced for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default R.I. for 6 months.2. The prosecution ease in brief is that on 27-6-1996 between 1.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. the appellant and his two associates were present near a hotel known as Sonal Tea House and were just to board in a taxi. Police Constable Shivaji Award P.W. 1 got the information from his informant that those persons were armed with weapons and they were going to commit the dacoity. P.W. 1 Award accosted them and made enquiries about their names and addresses. On this, the appellant and his associates assaulted him and more particularly the appellant who was holding a revolver threatened him that he would fire at him and would kill him. There ...
Shri Ramacustam Purshottam Shirodkar, Indian National, Prematurely Ret ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR766; (2002)3BOMLR942; 2002(4)MhLj50
Hardas, J.1. The petitioner, who was working as SeniorTranslator/Superintendent, by a Notice/Order which wasserved on the petitioner on 30th October 1993 wascompulsorily retired, in public interest, with immediateeffect. The Order/Notice of the High Court compulsorilyretiring the petitioner with effect from 30th October1993 is the subject matter of challenge in the presentpetition. Today this petition was heard and dismissedby us for the reasons to be recorded later.Accordingly, reasons, based on the following facts, arebeing recorded herein.2. The brief facts necessary for the decision ofthis petition are as hereunder:-The petitioner has passed his B.A. (Hons.)and LL.B.. The petitioner, it is averred, has alsopassed 7th year of Lyceum (a Portuguese Course). Thepetitioner, it is stated is a Praveen in Hindi. Thepetitioner was initially appointed as a Translator on26th November 1966 in the Court of the then JudicialCommissioner of Goa, Daman and Diu, at Panaji, by theappointment Order d...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai City, Mumbai Vs. Sinnar Bidi Ud ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR449
H.L. Gokhale, J.1.Heard Mr. Desai for the Appellant. Mr. Zhaveriwith Mr. Singh appears for the Respondent.2.This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct seeks to challenge the order dated 3rd December 1998passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming theorder of C.I.T. (Appeal) which allowed the appeal filedby the Respondent herein to the extent of disallowance ofRs.3,70,755/- which was claimed to be deducted by theRespondent from its income under Section 37 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961. The relevant assessment year is 1989-1990.3.The facts leading to this appeal are as follows :The Respondent herein is a beedi manufacturingcompany. It employs large number of workmen for itsactivities. For the assessment year 1989-90, it claimed adeduction of Rs.3,70,755/- as revenue expenditure onaccount of compensation paid to several workers onretirement. This amount was paid towards the period ofservice rendered by these workers under another companynamely B.N. Sarda Ltd. This deduct...
S.A. Shaikh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR482; 2002(5)BomCR464; [2002(95)FLR749]; 2002(3)MhLj544
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Central Government Labour Court No. 2 in application No. LC-2/577 of 1995 filed under Section 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for certain monetary reliefs in respect of overtime allowance, night duty allowance, 2nd and 3rd increments in the scale of Rs. 205-380 and revision of pay fixation in the scale of Rs. 110 - 180. The applicant had justified his claim which was for the period from 27th May 1957 to 24th July 1964 for which he had filed the application after a lapse of 26 years. The respondents contested the application by filing their written statement. The first and foremost contention raised by them, obviously, was of latches or limitation. They pleaded that they had not preserved the record for such a long period of 26 years, as under the rules, the same was required to be destroyed and was accordingly destroyed. It was also the case of the respon...
Slum Rehabilitation Authority and anr. Vs. Smt. Laxmi Mohan Ghone and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR741; 2002(5)BomCR477; (2002)4BOMLR302; 2002(3)MhLj699
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners are the slum rehabilitation authority and the Additional Collector, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, .established under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I C and R) Act, 1971. The respondents Nos. 1 to 13 are the slum dwellers and respondent No. 14 appears to be the developer. The nub of the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 15 who is the President, Maharashtra Slum Areas (1 C and R) Special Tribunal had passed the impugned order directing the petitioners to provide transit accommodation to the respondents 1 to 13, which he ought not to have passed.2. The facts are in a very narrow compass. On 15th March, 1999, the petitioner No. 2 had issued a show cause notice to respondent Nos. 1 to 13 calling upon them as to why their structures should not be demolished. It appears that the said respondents were heard in the matter and finally, the petitioner No. 1 had passed the order on 22nd April 1999, exercising its powers under Sections 33 and 38...
Pamvi Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Global Syntex (Bhilwara) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR204(Bom); 2002(6)BomCR50
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the present Summary Suit on the Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU') dated 20-2-1996 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants were interested to procure public subscription for 46,60,000 equity shares. The defendants accordingly approached the plaintiffs to procure the said subscription. The plaintiffs accepted the said arrangement. The said arrangement was the subject-matter of the 'MOU'. Relevant clauses of the MOU for the purpose of answering the issues in controversy are 3(d) 4, 5 and 6, which read as under :--'3(d) Fees of 17.50 per cent (amounting to Rs. 89,70,500 only) would be paid to the second party by the first party and the said amount shall be payable by Post-dated cheque payable in Bombay. Out of the above-mentioned amount of Rs. 89,70,500. Rs. 4,48,525 shall be payable at the time of signing this agreement and Rs. 22,42,625 shall be payable on the closure of the...
Chanchalben Wd/O Dharshi Shah and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MhLj382
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Perused the records. 2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 16th January 2002 passed by the Court of Small Causes of Bombay in Appeal No. 248 of 2001 rejecting the Application for amendment of the original plaint for eviction filed by the petitioners. 3. The facts, in brief, relevant for the decision are that the suit was filed by the husband of the petitioner No. 1 for eviction of the respondents/tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The original plaintiff expired during the proceedings of the suit and the petitioners were brought on record as the legal representatives. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed appeal against the said order. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the plaint thereby adding two more grounds for ev...
Ganeshji S/O Himmatram Mehta and anr. Vs. Sarojadevi W/O Rameshchandra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR430; 2003(1)MhLj49
D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. This civil revision application arises out of an order dated 13-8-1993 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No. 193 of 1978. By the impugned order, an application which was filed for impleading respondents 9 and 10 as the 5th and 6th defendants to the suit has been allowed. The aforesaid defendants, it must be noted, are the widow and the daughter of deceased Chandrakant Chaurasiya, who was original plaintiff No. 6 in the suit instituted before the trial Court. 2. Insofar as the facts material to the present proceedings are concerned, it would be necessary to note that the suit instituted was for specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property based upon the right of pre-emption conferred by an agreement dated 10-8-1973. During the pendency of the suit, original plaintiff No. 6 Chandrakant died on 6-6-1981 and was survived by a widow and a daughter, who are respectively respondents No. 9 and 10...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »