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.
Baban Rambhau Jagdale Vs. Hanmant Rambhau Jagdale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR145; 2003(1)MhLj113
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11-10-1983 passed by the second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Misc. Application No. 469 of 1981. The said application was preferred by the respondent under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act applying for probate in respect of a Will dated 8-7-1968, executed by his father Ramu Parshuram Jagadale, who died on 17-8-1969, whereunder property bearing No. 404/B, Shivajinagar, Pune has been bequeathed in his favour. It is not in dispute that the said property was purchased by Ramu Parshuram Jagadale in the year 1938 by a registered Sale Deed. The said application was resisted by the appellant. Though other heirs of Ramu Parshuram Jagadale were impleaded in the said proceedings, no say was filed by the opponents Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 7, whereas say was filed by opponents Nos. 1, 3 and 4. The appellant was opponent No. 1 in the said proceeding. In his reply, opposing the said application, th...
Mazagaon Dock Limited Vs. Engineering Workers Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR1005]; (2002)IIILLJ815Bom
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The Petitioner, a Government of India Undertaking under the Ministry of Defence, is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in Ship Building and Ship Repairing activities. It has about 8000 employees under its employment. There is a recognised Union functioning in the organisation. The Respondent Union is not a recognised union. The Respondent union had filed a Complaint of Unfair Labour Practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU & PULP Act) against the petitioner Company complaining of the aforesaid unfair labour practices being engaged in by the Petitioner Company and it sought such declaration from the Industrial Court in the complaint of unfair labour practice. The grievance of the said Complainant Union (Respondent No. 1 herein) was in respect of Outdoor fitters of the Outdoor Fitting Shop who were said to be 105 in number...
inamkhan S/O Abdul Latif Pathan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: (2004)1BOMLR1
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The appellant Inamkhan S/O Abdul Latif Pathan is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court for Greater Bombay passed in Special Case No. 79 of 1995, by which the appellant has been convicted for committing the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 21 r/w Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act for convenience) and sentenced him to under go R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 Lac, in default to suffer further R.I. for six months.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 29/1/1995 at about 9.30 a.m. P.S.I., Wadankar received information from his informant, that two persons are likely to come near hotel Samrat at Kandivali by possessing narcotic drugs. The said information was recorded in station diary, because the information book was produced in the Court and was not available for recording that inform...
Cit Vs. Sinnar Bidi Udyog Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN559(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.Heard Mr. Desai for the appellant. Mr. Zhaveri with Mr. Singh appears for the respondent (assessee).2. This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeks to challenge the order dated 3-12-1998 passed by the Tribunal confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein to the extent of disallowance of Rs. 3,70,755 which was claimed to be deducted by the respondent from its income under section 37 of the Act. The relevant assessment year is 1989-90.3. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows :The respondent herein is a beedi manufacturing company. It employs large number of workmen for its activities. For the assessment year 1989-90, it claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,70,755 as revenue expenditure on account of compensation paid to several workers on retirement. This amount was paid towards the period of service rendered by these workers under another company namel...
Murlidhar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)308; II(2003)DMC180
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for murder of his wife by burning and has been convicted of the said charge by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha vide impugned judgment dated 29.1.1997, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that there used to be quarrels between the appellant and his wife and at some-stage the appellant had tried to push his wife into the well due to which she had gone to her parents' house. The appellant, however, assured the parents of his wife that he would not henceforth assault her. A few days prior to Diwali in the year 1995, there was a quarrel between the appellant and his wife Lata. The reason for the quarrel was the sum of Rs. 400/- kept by the appellant with his wife Lata and the appellant demanded the said amount. His wife returned him Rs. 300/- and told him that she had spent Rs. 100/- for the clothes of the children. The appellant insisted that she should return the said amount of Rs....
Suraj Sanghi Finance Ltd. Vs. Credential Finance Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom481; (2002)1BOMLR767; 2002(4)MhLj770
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they had granted an intercorporate loan to defendant No. 1 which was acknowledged byreceipt dated 29-10-1996. The said loan was secured by personal guarantee of defendant No. 2. The intercorporate loan was thereafter acknowledged on several occasions. The documents form part of annexure to the plaint. By way of secured payments, defendants had pledged shares and had also issued cheques. It is the case of the plaintiff that when the cheques were deposited, they were dishonoured. Suit is filed under Order 37 of Civil Procedure Code. Receipt shows interest payable at the rate of 28.15% per annum. 2. On Summons for Judgment being taken out, defendants have put in their appearance. Affidavit has been filed by one Deepak, Managing Director of the defendant. I need not advert to the various averments in the affidavit as at the hearing of the Summons for Judgment, on behalf of the defendants, it is principally contended as under: (a) Th...
Baburao S/O Rajaram Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR625; 2003(1)BomCR401
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The scope of this petition, though initially limited to one particular issue regarding 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe, has subsequently been widened so as to consider the issues arising out of the MandalCommission Report and the judgment of the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney's case : AIR1993SC477 as well as in : AIR2000SC498 and it encompasses even to examine the scope of Other Backward Classes Commission's procedure, powers for formulation of its recommendations to be made to the State Government as mandated by the law laid down in the said case. It also considers the contemporary social factors and indicators which are more relevant than the traditional or conventional indicators in identifying/determining the Other Backward Classes. 2. With more than fifty years of Independence and the high rate of urbanization owning to developments in industry, business, etc. as also the spread of education, higher education both technical and specialized, the social fabric in the rur...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Sunder Rao B. Shinde and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR603; (2002)4BOMLR432; [2002(95)FLR240]; 2002(4)MhLj100
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners, in writ petition No. 2393 of 1996, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, a body corporate under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 is aggrieved by the judgments and orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.R.T.U. & PULP Act') holding that the petitioners had engaged in unfair labour practice under Item l(b) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and PULP Act and directing the petitioners to give alternative job to the respondent employee or to pay a sum of Rs. 60,0007- as compensation to him. The Labour Court has passed this order in the complaint of unfair labour practices filed by the respondent employee against the petitioner in exercise of its powers under Section 28 read with Section 30 of the M.R.T.U. & PULP Act. The petitioners were aggrieved by the said order and, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›