Mumbai Court July 2002 Judgments
Arun Vinayak Gharkar, Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)120; 2004CriLJ1053
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The appellants are hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 246 of 1995 wherein the appellants have been convicted for the offenses punishable under the provisions of Section 399 IPC and sentenced to under go RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further RI for two months.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 9.11.1994 at about 9 a.m. or so PW Sanjay Satardekar got the information from his reliable sources that some persons are likely to commit decoity at Vaibhav Co-operative Bank Ltd., situated on L.B.S. Marg, Mulund (East), Mumbai. PSI Sanjay Satardekar collected his colleagues, panch witnesses and took a jeep and ambassador car and ambushed near the bus stop near the said Bank. Those accused were to come by Maruti Van bearing No. MFA 4173. The said van came near the bus stop and some persons in...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Nabi Gulam Gawas Dead Through L.Rs. and Ghulam Hafiz Gulam Nabi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR769
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This first appeal is directed against a dismissal of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the judgment of the learned Assistant Judge, Akola, delivered on 30th April, 1984. The lands in question bearing Survey No. 40 of mouza Akoli Khurd admeasuring five acres came to be acquired for the rehabilitation of displaced person from the project of the Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth Agricultural University. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 16th May, 1974. The declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 23rd September, 1976. The Award of the Land Acquisition Officer was made on 20th December, 1982. The original claimant made a claim on the basis of the market value of the land computed at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre. In the Award, the Special Land Acquisition Officer granted to the original claimant compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,400/- per acre. In the reference under section 18 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Niloba S/O Gunda Madane and anr. Vs. Rukhminibai W/O Vithalrao Kulkarn ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1052; (2003)105BOMLR797
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Second appeal arises against dismissal of Regular Civil Appeal No. 176/1992, which was filed by present appellants - original defendant Nos. 2 & 3 vide judgment and order dated 16/12.1992 by 2nd Additional District Judge, Osmanabad. As a result of dismissal of first appeal, judgment and decree passed in favour of original plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 by Civil Judge (J. D.), Kallam, in Regular Civil Suit No. 101/1976 on 2.5.1992 stood confirmed. By the said judgment and order, learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of plaintiff for specific performance, directing defendant No. 1/respondent No. 2 to accept balance consideration of Rs. l.000/- and then directing all the defendants to execute a sale deed of suit land in favour of plaintiff within a period of two months from the date of the order. The defendants were also directed to handover possession of the suit land to the plaintiff within two months.Plaintiff approached the Civ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Through General Manager, Western Railway Vs. Shri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR785
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The above three Petitions are being disposed of by the present common Judgment and Order as the Labour Court has disposed of the Applications of the Respondents-workmen by a common Order dated 27.3.1996.2. The Petitioners, the Union of India, through the General Manager, 'Western Railway, are aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.1996 in Applications filed by the Respondents-workmen on 21.10.1992 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming overtime wages for the periods from January, 1980 to December, 1989. The names of the individual workmen and the period of overtime wages and the claim is given in the body of the Writ Petition. According to the Respondents-workmen they had worked on various trains for a number of days during the said period spread over from January, 1980 to December, 1989. They have claimed overtime wages by trying to compute the amounts in each of their cases.3. The Petitioners filed their written statements in thes...
Tag this Judgment!Dilawarkhan Ahmedkhan Vs. Manbee Ahemad Khan,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR647; (2003)1BOMLR688; 2003(1)MhLj533
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the respectiveparties.2. Rule. By mutual consent, Rule is madereturnable forthwith.3. It appears that Regular Civil SuitNo.1159 of 1995 is filed by petitioner againstrespondents for partition and separate possession.In the suit on 4.4.2002, plaintiff prayed forwitness summons. It is an admitted position thatdefendants were asked to enter the witness boxfirst. Defendants have completed their evidenceand subsequently evidence of plaintiff was inprogress. On 8.4.2002, Court ordered issuance ofsummons to witnesses as prayed by plaintiff and onthe same day, plaintiff has paid the process.On 12.4.2002, plaintiff filed anotherapplication requesting for issuance of summonses tothe same witnesses, because they were not presenton that day. From the say filed by respondents andorder of the Court dated 12.4.2002 on thatapplication, it appears that the witnesses wereserved but they were absent. The learned Judge,therefore, observed that there is no rea...
Tag this Judgment!Gunwant Laxman Ingale Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR641; 2003(1)BomCR160; 2002(4)MhLj931
R.G. Deshpande, J. 1. This petition raises an interesting and important question as regards the jurisdiction of the learned members of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the MAT' for the purpose of brevity) to rehear the matter after the same once having been referred to the third member, for his decision because of the difference of opinion between the two members of the MAT, in accordance with Section 26 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.2. Facts giving rise to the present litigation are :--The present petitioner before this Court i.e. Gunwant Ingle, who was working as a Executive Engineer in Public Works Department, stood prematurely retired, by order dated 4th September 1987 in accordance with the Rule No. 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for the sake of brevity). Pertinent it is to note that before his premature retirement, the petitioner was served with a show-c...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarling Vikas Seva Socy. Ltd. Vs. Dinkar Bhimrao Raut and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR66; (2003)2BOMLR1; 2003(1)MhLj152
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Both these writ petitions can be disposed of together by a common order, for the question involved is common. The petitioner in both these petitions initiated action against the respondent No. 1 in the respective petitions for recovery of certain amounts due to it; And after following due procedure obtained Recovery Certificate under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). By virtue of Section 101 of the Act, the Society became entitled to recover the amounts certified therein. That certificate was however, challenged by the respondent No. 1 in both the petitions, by way of statutory revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar rejected the said revisions and opined that on verifying the papers it is seen that the Assistant Registrar had followed the necessary procedure and that the contention raised before him that the subject loans were Benami and were not genuine do...
Tag this Judgment!Marie Fernandes Vs. Prakash H. Jain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MhLj392
P.C. 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20th September 2001 passed by the Competent Authority (Rent Act), Konkan Division, Mumbai in case No. 31 of 2001. By that order, the Court has condoned the delay in filing an application for leave to defend. Admitted facts are that the petitioner has filed an application under Sections 42 and 43 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act for an order of eviction against the respondent. It is also an admitted fact that an application for leave to defend which is required by Sub-section (4) of Section 43 of the Act to be filed by the respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of service of summons, was not filed by the respondent. It is also an admitted fact that the application for leave to defend was filed after a period of 30 days along with an application for condonation of delay and it is on that application that this order dated 20th September 2001 has been made by the Competent Authority, condoning the delay. 2....
Tag this Judgment!Pascoal Dias Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(157)ELT132(Bom)
P.V. Hardas, J. 1. This revision has been filed by the applicant, who is convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Goa, Margao, for an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 5 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, in Customs Case No. 4/1987/A and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. The challenge to the conviction and sentence, as passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Goa, Margao, resulted in the dismissal of the appeal filed by the present applicant, by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, by judgment dated 30th August, 2001, in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1994. The applicant being thus aggrieved, has filed the present criminal revision application. 2. The brief facts necessary for the decision of this revision are stated hereunder :- P.W. 2 Shri K.D. Shridaran, a Preventive Officer, was on duty at the Dabo...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC400
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellant-accused was charged under Sections 302 read with Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of his wife Kalpana on 12.6.1995 in the evening between 6.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. The Trial Court convicted the accused-appellant herein for having committed an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months. The Trial Court, however, directed both the sentences should run concurrently. The appellant-accused is challenging the said judgment and order in this appeal.2. The facts are that the deceased Kalpana was the daughter of Ramkrishna Thakre, resident of Karan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »