Mumbai Court August 2003 Judgments

Raju S/O Pundlikrao Burde Vs. Establishment Officer (iii-b), Maharasht ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR460; 2003(4)MhLj780

A.P. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. Heard Shri N. C. Phadnis, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R. K. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents.3. The petitioner is in the employment of Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The petitioner joined as a Junior Engineer with MSEB on 10-2-1986, as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner had sought the said appointment on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, which was validated by the appellate authority viz. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur in Appeal No. 26 of 1982, vide order dated 31st May, 1982. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner's caste certificate was referred for verification and scrutiny to the Director of Social Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune, the same was rejected by the said authority which is corresponding to the caste scrutiny committee. Then, in the year 1981-82, an order in regard...

Abhijit S/O Ashok Rajapure Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR766; 2004(1)MhLj361

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally Shri N. C. Phadnis, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Fulzele, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to 'Mala Jangam' scheduled caste. In support of his caste claim, the petitioner placed reliance on document filed at Annexure 'P' which is a copy of register of Village Panchayat Committee, Gondi of the year 1939/40. Perusal of the copy of the said register reveals that the caste of the petitioner's father is recorded as 'Jangam' and not 'Mala Jangam'. In the list of Scheduled Castes issued by the President of India in exercise of powers under Article 341, there is entry No. 42 in the State list in regard to 'Mala Jangam'. The Committee has rejected the caste claim of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner does not belong to 'Mala Jangam' caste and as such he is not a Scheduled Caste candidate. By h...

Marotrao S/O Shamrao Pachare and ors. Vs. Usha Marotrao Pachare

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2005)DMC337; 2004(1)MhLj253

P.S. Brahme, J.1. This criminal revision application is preferred by the applicants herein challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur on 16-9-1999 in Criminal Revision No. 6/1999, allowing the revision application filed by the non applicant herein and, directing the applicant No. 1 to produce the applicants No. 2 to 4 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Daryapur, for handing over the custody of the children to the non applicant.2. Material facts of the case may be stated in brief as follows - The non applicant Sau. Usha Pachare is legally wedded wife of the applicant No. 1 -Marotrao Pachare and their marriage was performed about 9 years back. As usual, after marriage they lived together and cohabited and three children namely applicants No. 2 to 4, were born to the non-applicant out of this wedlock.3. The non applicant filed an application under section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 4-1-1999 in the court of judicial Magistrate, First Class, ...

J.H. Podar High School and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR207; 2004(3)BomCR901; 2004(2)MhLj713

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.2. Respective Counsel waive notice for respective parties.3. As short question is involved, this petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.4. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai, dated April 19, 2003, in Appeal No. 128 of 1999. Respondent No. 3 herein was appointed as Head Mistress in the School run by the petitioners on 23rd June 1997. The services of respondent No. 3 came to be terminated by notice dated 26th March 1999 with effect from 30th April 1999. Respondent No. 3 challenged that order before the School Tribunal by way of statutory appeal. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal and set aside the termination order. The Tribunal has further awarded full backwages to respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4 was appointed on 21st September 1999 after the respondent No. 3 ceased to hold the office by virtue of order dated 26th March 1999. ...

Madhavgir S/O Gururatangir Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj161

A.S. Bagga, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18-8-1998, passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 126 of 1997, thereby convicting the appellant/original accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution story, in brief, is as follows :-The appellant was residing with deceased Kalawatibai for about 5 to 6 years before the incident in question. Though deceased Kalawatibai was not legally wedded wife of the appellant, she resided with the appellant as his mistress/keep. It appears that the house was recorded in the name of the appellant and deceased Kalawatibai had got her name mutated in the records. On account of this, there was quarrel between the two in which the deceased was assaulted. The appellant was arrested. He was taken to police station. He was, however, released on bail. The appellant returned home on 18-1-1997, at abou...

Ganesh International and Gautam Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application by Ganesh International is for waiver of deposit of total duty of Rs. 63,82,644/- out of which Rs. 3,30,548/- relates to consignment currently for clearance and remainder for past clearance, and penalty of Rs. 11,50,000. Application by Gautam Overseas is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 9,75,795/- and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs.The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed, on the ground that the long pepper imported by the applicant is classifiable as a spice in heading 9.04 of the Tariff and not as a part of plant used primarily in pharmacy classifiable in heading 12.11.2. Counsel for the applicant contends that long pepper (piper longum L) is which is different from black pepper is primarily used as an ayurvedic medicament and only as a minor culinary use. He relies upon the list under appendix V to Rule 5 under the Prevention of Adulteration Rules indicates black pepper a long pepper and indication in the book Indian Material Medica by Nadkarni and the book Wea...

Rajendra Vinayak Shirgaokar Vs. Industrial Investment Bank of

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2004)BC27

1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant, being aggrieved by the order dated 4.10.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai on Exhibit No.18 in Original Application No. 1094/1999. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the appellant's/defendant's application for recalling order passed by the Tribunal on 15.5.2001 vide Exhibit No. 7 in which, the defendant was directed to disclose on affidavit properties--movable and immovable--belonging to him either solely or jointly.2. I have heard Mr. Gaikwad for the appellant and Mr. Jaychandran for the respondent Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings and in my view, no fault can be found with the impugned order.It is argued by Mr. Gaikwad that the earlier order dated 15.5.2001 was passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal ex parte and the appellant was not heard at the time of passing of the order and, therefore, order was bad. This submission of Mr. Gai...

Abraham Koshy Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is for the assessment year 1996-97, against the order dated 25.5.1998, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).2. In the return for the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee showed receipt of Rs. 1.91 crores on account of transfer of tenancy rights.Against this receipt, the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the extent of Rs. 1,32,52,307. The exemption was claimed on the ground that the assessee had purchased two ne properties, one at Mumbai and the other at Cochin. While processing the return, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under section 54. The Adjustment Explanatory Sheet read as under :- "The assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 54 against LTCG. Since the asset transferred is not a building or land appurtenant thereto in the nature of residential house but in the nature of tenancy right, the deduction that would have been available to the assessee could be under section 54F. Since the assessee has invested ...

Anil Kalgonda Patil, Vs. the Gram Panchayat, Through Gram Sevak and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR453; 2003(5)BomCR667; 2004(1)MhLj245

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. V.B. Rajpure, learned Advocate, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. R.M. Patne, learned Assistant Government Pleader,appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Mr. Tejpal Ingale, learned Advocate, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 11 to 15.2. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.3. This petition is filed by the petitioners for an appropriate direction to the Collector, Kolhapur, respondent No. 3 herein to decide the dispute raised by the petitioners as to genuineness of the resignations tendered by them after affording an opportunity of hearing to them. A further prayer is made to quash and set aside the order dated June 16, 2003 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, respondent No. 4 herein (Exhibit F) by which he has ordered to fill in eight vacant seats of Gram Panchaya...

Balu @ Madhavrao Shankarrao Ghorpade (Since Deceased by His L/Rs. Ajay ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR445; 2004(1)BomCR77; 2004(1)MhLj323

Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioners are original defendants and the respondents are original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 203 of 1984 filed in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status in the suit.2. For the purposes of this petition it is not necessary to go into details of the facts involved in the suit. Suffice it to say that the suit was for possession of land on the ground that it was joint family property and that the father of the defendants was a licensee. The defendants in their written statement denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to suit land and that their father was a licensee.3. The rojnama of the suit shows that on 20.12.1985, issues were framed. Suit was adjourned to 5.4.1986. On 5.4.86, it was adjourned to 4.7.86. On 4.7.86, it was adjourned to 19.7.86. On 15.7.86 the plaintiffs requested for issuing of witness summons, that request was granted and the s...