Mumbai Court September 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.
Babasaheb S/O Dagadu Bhurale Vs. the State of Maharashtra and the Coll ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR727; 2003(2)MhLj689
Mhase, J.1. Heard Mr. D.R. Jayabhar, learned Counsel forthe petitioner and Mr. N.B. Khandare, learned A.G.P. forthe respondents.2. Rule made returnable forthwith with theconsent of the parties. Mr. N.B. Khandare, learned A.G.P.waives service for respondents.3. The petitioner has approached this Court todirect the respondent no. 2 to restore the lands Gat No. 133and 136 at village Katpur, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabadto the petitioner within three months for his cultivation.The petitioner was owner of the said lands. These landswere required by the Govt. for the purposes of Jayakwadiproject and, therefore, the Collector, Aurangabad carriedout a land acquisition proceeding and the lands wereacquired compulsorily under the said provisions and thecompensation as provided under the Land Acquisition Actwas also paid. The acquisition proceedings were completedin the year 1965. However, these lands have not been usedfor the said project and the lands are being utilized forOpen Jail located at ...
Vijay S/O Ganesh Gondhalekar and anr. Vs. Ramchandra S/O Girdharilal S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)28; 2003BomCR(Cri)542; 2003(1)MhLj47
R.K. Batta, J.1. The applicants seek to quash and set aside the order of issuing process as well as order dated 14-1-1999 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1275 of 1996. The respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Sections 403, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicants. This complaint was presented to the Court on 22-11-1996 and on the same day complainant was examined under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code. Process was issued against the present applicants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 6-2-1997. The present applicant No. 1, viz. accused No. 1 filed ah application on 1-4-1997 for dismissal of the complaint as the same was not signed by the complainant and as such was not maintainable. This application was disposed of by the Trial Court vide order dated 14-1-1999 stating that the learned predecessor had already taken cognizance of the case and process was ...
Mande D'Penha and Ors. Vs. Sapal Farmroze Printers since deceased thro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR274; 2003(1)BomCR506; (2003)2BOMLR216; 2003(1)MhLj24
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the Small Causes Court of Bombay dated 24th December 1985 in Appeal No. 238 of 1975.2. The premises in question is on the second floor of building known as 'Maudestan' and garage situated at 194, D'Monto Park Road, Bandra, Bombay-50. The petitioners are the landlords in respect of the suit premises. The respondents were inducted in the suit premises as monthly tenants pursuant to the lease agreement dated 8th May, 1951 under which they were asked to erect second floor on the existing building and the garage and the compound wall at the costs of Rs. 21,500/-; and the respondents after constructing the said portion on the suit property started residing there as tenants. The petitioners instituted suit against the respondents sometime in November 1965 being R.A.E. Suit No. 714 of 1965 before the Small Causes Court, Bombay for possession of the suit p...
V. Ananthraman Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR675; (2002)4BOMLR871; 2002LC572(Bombay); 2003(151)ELT278(Bom); 2003(3)MhLj721
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. In this petition, the Petitioners have challenged the validity of the Show Cause Notice dated 29th September, 1988 (Exhibit - 'S' to the petition) issued by the Central Excise Authorities, in so far as it seeks to levy penalty upon the Petitioners under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ('Rules' for short). 2. Ordinarily, we would not have taken up the onerous responsibility of adjudicating the show cause notice on ourself in exercise of writ jurisdiction, but in the facts of this case, we are satisfied that the condition precedent for invoking Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules being not satisfied question of taking any penal action against the Petitioners does not arise at all and hence instead of permitting the authorities to adjudicate we have decided to hear the matter on merits itself. 3. The facts having bearing of the subject-matter of the present petition are as follows : In the year 1985, relevant to the present petition, the Petitioners were...
Ajit Bhagwandas Udeshi Vs. Smt. Kumud Ajit Udeshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom120; 2003(1)ALLMR9; 2003(3)BomCR224; I(2003)DMC602
V.C. Daga, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th February, 1996 passed by the Seventh Family Court. Mumbai at Bandra in M. J. Petition No. A-529 of 1988. 2. The factual matrix lies in narrow compass. The appellant and respondent married on 25th November, 1960. The parties to the appeal have three issues from the said wedlock. The appellant is working with Life Insurance Corporation as Development Officer. 3. It appears that the matrimonial dispute cropped up between parties sometime in the month of November, 1980 i.e. after 20 years of married life, which, ultimately, resulted in a long drawn matrimonial litigation. The appellant moved Family Court against the respondent on various grounds for seeking decree of divorce. The Family Court considering the pleadings of the parties, framed issues relevant to the pleadings of the parties and after full trial was pleased to grant decree of divorce holding that the respondent (wife) deserted appellant (husban...
Vasant Narayan Damle Vs. Honourable Chief Justice, High Court of Judic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR508; [2003(96)FLR553]; (2003)ILLJ1055Bom
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner who was a District & Sessions Judge in the State of Maharashtra has challenged the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dismissing him from service on the ground that the misconduct alleged against him was duly proved before the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer and therefore this punishment was meted out. Facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner while working as a District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur granted anticipatory bail to certain accused, some of them were advocates of that Court, which according to the department was a misconduct and therefore a charge-sheet was issued to him. The incident as alleged by the department is that in the evening of March 30, 1994 certain lawyers approached the petitioner and requested him to take up for urgent orders an application for anticipatory bail, as it pertains to certain advocates. Taking into consideration the fact that the advocates who...
Mukharu Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC514
S.G. Mahajan, J.1. The judgment and order impugned in this appeal were passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, on 24.11.1997 in Session Trial No. 68 of 1997, whereby he convicted accused No. 1 Mukhru son of Kisan Tiwade of the offence under Section 302, 1. P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to suffer R.I. for three months more.2. The case of the prosecution is as under:(A) Deceased Venubai, who was the daughter of one Kawadu Rohankar, was married to accused No. 1 Mukhru Tiwade and their marriage was solemnized in 1991. Accused No. 2 Kisan Tiwade is the father and accused No. 3 Sitabai Tiwade is the mother of accused No. 1. All the three accused and deceased Venubai were living together in a house at Halda. About two years after the marriage, Venubai was taken to the house of her uncle named Mukhru Rohankar for delivery. The residence of Mukhru Rohankar was also at the same village, ie. Halda. Venubai gave a bi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Khimline Pumps Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR444; (2002)4BOMLR876; 2002(4)MhLj546
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal dated 25th July, 2000 in Income Tax Appeal No. 335/MUM/97 for Assessment Year 1991-92, the Department has filed this Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has preferred Cross Objections under Order 41 Rule 22(1).2. The substantial question of law which arises for determination of this Court is as follows :--'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that payment of Rs. 45 lakhs for purchase of the Unit was a capital expenditure and if it was a capital expenditure as heldby the Tribunal then whether the Tribunal was justified in directing apportionment of the said amount as advance rent over a period of 71 years at the rate of Rs. 63,380/- per annum as rent relatable to each year?'3. Since the above substantial question of law arises out of the Appeal filed by the Department and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee, they are heard together ...
Pradeep S/O Domaji Bhanose and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)706; 2003(1)MhLj40
R.K. Batta, J.1. In all these applications, the applicants have been prosecuted under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clauses 12B and 12E of Colliery Control Order, 1945. In all these cases, the Police had seized Trucks carrying steam coal. According to the learned Advocate for the applicants, the Colliery Control Order, 1945 was modified by the Central Act vide Notification dated 24th July, 1967 published in Part II section Sub-section (ii) of The Gazette of the India, Extraordinary dated The 24th July, 1967. The said Notification reads as under :'S. O. 2464 - In pursuance of Clauses 12B and 12E of the Colliery Control Order, 1945 as continued in force by Section 16 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955) the Central Government hereby authorises a person - (a) to acquire or purchase or agree to acquire or purchase, or (b) to dispatch or agree to dispatch or transport, or (c) to divert or transfer, without any order of allotment or writte...
Neeta Kirit Desai Vs. Bino Samuel George
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom7; 2003(2)ALLMR208; 2003(1)BomCR519; (2003)1BOMLR310; I(2003)DMC151
V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-10-2000 passed by the Family Court No. 4, Pune, in P.A. No. 511 of 1998, dismissing the petition filed by appellant-wife prayingfor divorce in the ground of cruelty. THE FACTSThe facts in brief are as under.:--2. The petitioner is Hindu and respondent is a Christian converted to Hindu Religion. Both of them got married on 18-10-1991.3. It appears that immediately after the marriage sometime in the month of June 1992, matrimonial dispute cropped up amongst the parties to this appeal which resulted in matrimonial litigation being PA No. 295/92 wherein petitioner-wife prayed for decree of annulment of marriage and declaration to that effect under Section 5 read with Sections 1 and 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said petition following issues were framed and tried and after full trial petitioner-wife suffered adverse findings on all the issues, summary of which is reproduced hereinbelow for r...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »