Mumbai Court June 2002 Judgments
Gulam Kadar Gulam Rasool Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MhLj398
A.S. Aguiar, J. 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India by the petitioner who describes himself as brother of the detenu, namely, Gulam Nadar Gulam Rasool, impugning the order dated 23rd January 2002, annexure A to the petition, passed by the detaining authority i.e. second respondent Ranjana Sinha, Secretary to the Government or Maharashtra detaining the said detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act' for short). The said order of detention along with grounds of detention both dated 23rd January 2002 were served on the detenu on 23rd January 2002 itself. The detenu was also served with the list of documents and copies of documents set out in the said list which are purported to have been placed before the detaining authority and on the basis of which documents the detaining authority has purportedly issued the impugned order of detention.2....
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Harischandra Vatkar Vs. Jawaharnagar Co-operative Housing S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR308; (2003)2BOMLR16; 2003(1)MhLj54
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-op. Appellate Court, Bombay dated 23rd June 1989 in Appeal No. 129 of 1987. 2. The petitioner instituted a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on the allegation that the respondent No. 1 society was formed to provide residential houses to the members belonging to backward class. According to the petitioner he was the member of the respondent No. 1 society and had complied with all the formalities on account of which he had become entitled for allotment of a constructed house in the respondent No. 1 society, however, the society inducted respondent No. 2 in the said constructed house. The petitioner further alleges that the respondent No. 2 does not belong to backward class community and therefore he was not entitled to become a member of the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Nandinee Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ810Bom
P.V. Kakade, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking to set aside and quash the enquiry and order dated November 29, 1989 held under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), on the ground that it is illegal and invalid in law. 2. The facts involved in the dispute in brief are thus - The petitioner Company constituted under the Companies Act, 1956 was established in August, 1979 and is engaged in the business of travelling agency. One Kiran Deochand Shah and his wife are the Directors of the said Company. Ashish Enterprises is a proprietary concern established in the year 1980 dealing in trading of constructional steel and cement and proprietor thereof is the son of the petitioner and is located at 13, Cosmos Commercial Complex, Station Road, Kolhapur. Rakhee Associates is also a proprietary concern established in December, 1984 and deals in the trade of welding rods and industri...
Tag this Judgment!Kishorilal S/O Laxminarayan Chandak Vs. Leelabai Wd/O Nandiram Holani ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR783; (2002)4BOMLR284; 2002(4)MhLj118
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The applicant's father Laxminarayan owned a residential house bearing Municipal House No. 208 in Ward No. 25 at Waruha. The ground floor of the house consisting of four rooms was let out to the tenant in February 1972. The tenant started conducting the business of a grocery shop inthe premises. Several agreements of lease were executed between the parties and by the last of those agreements executed on 10-6-1980, the rent was fixed at Rs. 375/- per month. The last of the lease agreements expired on 31-1-1983.2. Since the tenants failed to vacate and hand over the possession of the rented premises upon the expiry of the lease, the applicant moved the Rent Controller for the grant of his prior written permission under Clause 13 of the C. P. and Berar Rent Control Order, 1949. The Rent Controller granted the permission as prayed for under Sub-clauses (ii), (v) and (vi) of Clause 13(3) of the Rent Control Order. The aforesaid sub-clauses deal with a situation where t...
Tag this Judgment!Shamrao Shripat Pakhare Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR258
R.K. Batta, J.1. The Appellant was tried for murder of his wife under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as also subjecting her to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, however, has been acquitted of the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code but, he has been convicted for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide Judgment and Order dtd. 11.7.1997 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim. The prosecution had in all examined 6 witnesses in support of the charge. The Trial Court has accepted the evidence of two witnesses viz. Shankar (P. W. 2) and Sitaram (P. W. 3) as also the medical evidence on the strength of which the conviction has been recorded.2. Learned Advocate for the appellant urged before us that the prosecution has examined two so-called eye witnesses viz. P. W. 2 Shankar and P. W. 3 Sitaram. According to him, the statement of P. W. 3 Sitaram was recorded only on 23.11.1996 that is to say after ...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Radiators Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC626Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The common question for consideration in these appeals is the classification of the goods described as heater core manufactured by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order impugned in these appeals has confirmed in his order the classification confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner of these goods under Heading 8415.00 in preference to that claimed by the manufacturer of Heading 8419.90.2. The goods, whose function was explained to us and of which a sample was produced, consist of a radiator with a honey comb arcon structure with an inlet and outlet pipe. It was explained that water heated in the radiator of a motor vehicle is drawn into the honey comb. There, it comes into contact with the ambient air which is forced through the cells of the honey combs. The air is cheated by the air getting in contact with the honey comb and this heated air is blown into the cabin to heat it. "Air-conditioning machines, comprising a motor-driven fan and elements for changing the tem...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Chimanbai Patel Vs. Lalit Constructions and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR345; 2002(6)BomCR72; 2002(3)MhLj846
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereafter referred to as the 'Act', for an injunction restraining the respondents from directly or indirectly removing, using, dealing with and/or disposing of the RCC finished pipes for the value of Rs. 35,21,175/- without paying the claim of the petitioner. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed for a mandatory injunction directing respondent No. 2 Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran to withhold a sum of Rs. 35,21,175/- out of amount payable to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner entered into an agreement at Exh. A with the respondent under which the respondent has agreed to take on lease from the petitioner certain machinery for manufacture of RCC pipes. The execution of this agreement is not questioned by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1. The parties are mainly at issue in respect of Exh. B which is a letter dated 28-12-2001 purportedly addressed by res...
Tag this Judgment!Dinkar Tippanna Mirajkar Vs. Bank of India, Jaisingpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR32; 2002(6)BomCR535; 2002(3)MhLj791
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Leave to delete the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Heard the Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 14th March, 2002 passed by the trial Court directing the petitioner to secure the amount of Rs. 2,01,026/- i.e. the suit claim, out of pensionary benefits which he is likely to receive on or after 31-3-2002. The order is stated to have been passed for the purpose of detention and preservation of the amount sufficient to satisfy suit claim. The order is stated to have been passed in terms of the provisions contained in Section 94(C) of Civil Procedure Code. 3. Apparently, the order has been passed for the purpose of detention and preservation of the amount in order to facilitate the respondent to recover the suit claim in case he succeeds in getting a favourable decree. Undisputedly, the Court is empowered to pass the order for detention, preservation or inspection of any propert...
Tag this Judgment!Dedhia Investments (P.) Ltd. Vs. Jrd Securities (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR545; 2002(6)BomCR102; (2002)4BOMLR930; 2003(1)MhLj824
S.A. Bobde, J. 1. The petitioners challenge the final award dated 28-1-2002 of the Appellate Bench of the Mumbai Stock Exchange and the earlier arbitral award dated 26-4-2001 by this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act'). 2. Taking up the challenge to the final award of the Appellate Bench, there seems to be no merit in the petitioners contentions against it. The Appellate Bench had directed the petitioners to deposit 15 per cent of the amount awarded by the panel of the arbitrators under Bye-law No. 274A of the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai, 1957. This order to deposit the amount representing 15 per cent of the amount awarded, was made by the Appellate Bench by order dated 27-9-2001 when that Bench refused to exempt the petitioners from depositing the whole of the amount awarded.3. Thereafter by final award dated 28-1 -2002 the Appellate Bench rejected the appeal relying on a rule as a part of regulation 15....
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Pandurang Kulkarni Vs. Parshuram Narhar Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR137; 2003(1)MhLj334
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. These writ petitions take exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Satara dated January 21, 1998 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 618 of 1994. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1154 of 1998 and respondent in Companion Writ Petition No. 1276 of 1998 is tenant. Whereas, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1276 of 1998 and respondent in Writ Petition No. 1154 of 1998 is the landlord. The premises in question are situated at C.S. No. 355, Yadogopal Peth, Satara. The landlord instituted a suit for possession against the tenant before the Court of the Civil Judge, J.D., Satara being Regular Civil Suit No. 489 of 1992 on the ground of bona fide requirement and default. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the landlord on both the counts. The trial Court while answering the issue no. 4 pertaining to the ground of default held that the tenant was a monthly tenant and was a defaulter. Therefore, the trial Court passed a conditional de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »