Mumbai Court February 2003 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.
Shri Hari Fakira Kale, Vs. the State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR439; 2003(4)BomCR538; 2003(2)MhLj593
R.M. Lodha, J.1. In this writ petition we are concerned with theacquisition of land bearing survey No. 809/2 situatedwithin the limits of Nasik Municipal Corporation. Thisland along with other adjacent lands was designated in theDevelopment Plan of Nasik in the year 1980 for 'Housingfor Dishoused' and 'Stable and 100 feet Road'. The landbeing survey No.809/2 admeasures 7 Hectors 10 ares. Thepetitioners claim to be owners of the said land. On13.08.1982 the acquisition of the land in question wasproposed by the Administrator, Nasik Municipal Council tothe Collector, Nasik, Nasik Municipal Corporation havinginto existence on 8.11.1982 again asked the Collector ofNasik to acquire the land in question vide letter dated16.12.1982. The agreement was entered into between theMunicipal Corporation of Nasik and the State ofMaharashtra on 4.10.1984 concerning the acquisition ofland in question and other adjacent lands. It is not indispute that notification under Section 126 (2) ofMaharashtra Regio...
Smt. Leena Lawrence Lewis Vs. Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1307; 2003CriLJ2501; 2003(2)MhLj495
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns thedetention order dated 19.2.2002 passed by respondent No. 1M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihanmumbai detainingthe detenue Shri Rajesh Subayya Shetty under Sub-section 1of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of DangerousActivities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders andDangerous Act, 1981. The petitioner is the sister of thepresent detenue.2. The detention order alongwith grounds of detentionalso dated 19.2.2002 was served on the detenue on 21.2.2002.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.Although in the writ petition, the learned counsel for thepetitioner has pleaded eight grounds for assailing theimpugned order of detention numbered as grounds 7(A) to7(H), but since in our view, this petition deserves to beallowed on ground No. 7(B), we are neither adverting to theother grounds on which the impugned detention order ischalle...
Capt. Abdul Sattar Ahmed Pagarkar Vs. R.H. Mendsonsa, Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)62; 2003BomCR(Cri)983; 2003CriLJ3790
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality and continuance of the investigation in progress since 1998 in respect of C.R. No. 30 of 1998 from General Branch, GBCB, CID in respect of complaint filed by Mr. S.K. Wadhwani which alleges commission of offences punishable under the provisions of Section 406, 467 of IPC. Shri Wadhwani alleged that by taking his signatures on blank documents the petitioner committed fraud, misappropriation of his property and cheated him. He alleged in his complaint which he filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Crawford Market, Mumbai on 18.3.1998 that his manager Shri Moorthy noticed that the petitioner took wrongful possession of his flat situated at Colaba and took away certain documents in context with his properties. He further alleged that by misusing a general power of attorney executed in his favour the petitioner swindled his money and purchased some flats in Mumbai, ...
Pune Khadya Peya Vikreta Sangh, Registered as a Society Under the Soci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR468; 2003(3)BomCR513; 2003(2)MhLj620
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Commissioner of Police, Pune ON 16.08.1991 made, 'Rules for keeping places of public entertainment in Pune Police Commissionerate Rules, 1990' with the previous sanction of the Government and after following the procedure as contemplated under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. By the said rules, interalia fees of licence/registration of a place of public entertainment were increased. In this writ petition filed by the Association of Hotel owners in Pune district, the enhancement of fees for licence/registration under the said rules are under challenge.2. The enhancement in the fees for licence/registration under the impugned rules is thus:'I.Pune CityRates Rs.(1)5 Star Hotel3,000(2)4 Star Hotel2,500(3)3 Star Hotel2,000II. Hotels/Restaurants/Canteens with bar in respect of:- (a)areas with population upto 50000100(b)areas with population above 50000 but below 3 lakhs300(c)areas with population above 3 lakhs but below 10 lakhs500(d)areas with population above...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. International Data Management Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Bom)336; [2003]261ITR177(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Department has come by way of appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in all raising seven questions. The appeal concerns the assessment year 1988-89.Facts :2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of data processing cards, ribbons and mini micro-based systems. It also develops computer software and it also provides technical consultancy services in India and abroad. It also carries on data processing activity with data processing machines installed at its data centre. The assessee is also a dealer in computer software and computer hardware. The assessee also receives goods manufactured by other concerns and before those goods could be used, their suitability is tested by the assessee.3. For the sake of convenience, we prefer to answer this appeal question-wise.4. Question No. 1 reads as follows : Question No. 1 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cas...
Keshavraj Lalchand Sakraney and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Offi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR923; 2003(5)BomCR288; 2003(2)MhLj513
A.P. Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 226 is for the issue of anappropriate writ, order or direction directing the State Government to make ordersanctioning deletion of reservation for recreation ground on the petitioners' plotof land. The petitioners also seek the issue of an appropriate writ, order ordirection for quashing the letter dated 31-10-2002 issued by the StateGovernment to Municipal Commissioner of Gr. Mumbai and for directing theState Government to withdraw from acquisition proceedings in respect of thesaid land.2. The petitioners are owners of land bearing CS No. 65 of Dadar Naigaon Division, admeasuring 3718 square metres, hereinafter called the said land. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation, prepared Development Plan for City of Bombay, which was sanctioned in respect of 'F' Ward vide Resolution No. TPE 4366/641 dated 7-1-1967, hereinafter called as 1967 Development Plan. The land of the petitioners was reserved in 1967 Development Plan for public purpose of recreati...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chemiequip Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Bom)144; [2004]265ITR265(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Department has come by way of appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act with the following questions of law in respect of asst. yr. 1988-89 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable Tribunal was right in cancelling the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the ground that no penalty can be levied where the assessed income is a loss, ignoring the provisions of Expln. 4 below Section 271(1)(c), though holding that there was concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars by making wrong claim under Section 80HHC of Rs. 8,37,871 by the assessee?' (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable Tribunal was right in observing that there was no concealment of income on account of adjustment of Rs. 1,07,27,006 being income for earlier years ignoring that the assessee had offered this amount of tax only after the issu...
Shri Vivek Goenka, Managing Editor, loksatta Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1653; 2003CriLJ4058; 2003(4)MhLj880
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. The petitioner, the Managing Editor - Director of daily Loksatta is hereby assailing the propriety, correctness and legality of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) AC Court at Pune at Criminal Case No. 3729/96 whereby process has been issued against him in respect of the offences punishable under the provisions of Section 500 read with 34 of IPC.2. In the issue of 13.10.1996 an news item was published under the heading 'PUNYATIL SAHA SANCHALKAVIRUDHA GADCHIROLIT GHUNHA DAKHAL, BANAVAT MAHATICHYA ADHARE KOTYAVADHICHI FASAVNUK'. Respondent No. 2 by filing the complaint in the said court alleged that by publishing such news item the present petitioner and some other persons defamed him and thereby committed offences punishable under the provisions of Section 500 read with Section 34 of IPC.2. Shri R.S. Chitnis pointed out paragraph No 2 from the complaint which revolves around the acts alleged to have been committed by the present petitioner. It is...
Prabhakar S/O Pandurang Ingole Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1097; (2004)106BOMLR731
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard Shri Dharmadhlkari, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Patel, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.2. This is an appeal which seeks to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 20.9.2001 passed by the Joint District Judge and the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 131 of 1994, by which the Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for a period of three months. For the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C, the accused has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for a period of six months.3. The brief facts of the prosecution case can be summaris...
Y.K. Doshi Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT463Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Although the above appeals arise out of two separate orders of the Commissioner of Customs, since both the appeals involve a single common issue, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Mr. Y.K. Doshi is the proprietor of M/s. Jalaram Overseas Corporation while Mr. B.K. Doshi is the proprietor of M/s. Bayoma Exports. They are exporters of made ups, garments etc. They filed shipping bills for goods described as Powerloom Cotton Ladies Night Gown (M/s. Jalaram Overseas Corporation) and powerloom viscose cotton ladies night gown (M/s. Bayoma Exports) under claim of drawback under Chapter 62.07 of the Drawback schedule. The goods were examined and found to be misdeclared to the extent that these were embroidered ladies night gowns. This resulted in violation of the provisions of Section 50(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 11 of Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rules, 1993 and therefore, the goods were held to be liable to confiscation under Section 113(d)(i...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »