Mumbai Court January 2004 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.
Bhawalya @ Bawalal Totaram Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)MhLj498
B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. This appeal, arises from an order of conviction and sentence dated 8th of September, 1999 in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1998, decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Amalner. The Sessions Court has convicted the accused/appellant for an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (the Code, for short) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of fine further rigorous imprisonment for one month, whereas he came to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Code. When this appeal was admitted by order dated 1st February, 2000 there was no application for bail and, therefore, he has been in jail since 1st February, 1998 as noted in the impugned order of conviction and sentence.2. The prosecution case briefly states that the prosecutrix Rinku d/o Shivaji Patil is the granddaughter (daughter's daughter) of the complainant Santosh s/o Naval Patil (PW1), a ...
Prabha Laxman Ghate Vs. Sub-registrar and Collector of Stamps and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Bom267; 2004(4)BomCR148; 2004(2)MhLj665
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The petitioner is the owner of the property. Pursuant to the Amnesty Scheme introduced by respondent No. 1, by an application dated 13th March 1995, the petitioner produced an Agreement dated 10th April 1989 for regularisation of the document after payment of stamp duty and the penalty of Rs. 250/- as per the Amnesty Scheme. The petitioner, by a letter dated 24th January 1996, was informed that she had to pay a sum of Rs. 47,630/- as stamp duty on the development agreement. It is at this stage that the petitioner filed the petition before this Court in the year 1996. The case of the petitioner is that she took legal advice and insofar as the two flats which were retained for her are concerned, there was no question of payment of any stamp duty as the provisions of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958, as amended by the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Second Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996 were not applicable. By the said amendment in Article 5, after Clause (g), Clause (g-a)...
Khan Afzalkhan Miyakhan Vs. Malegaon Municipal Corporation and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR420; 2004(3)BomCR534; 2004(2)MhLj787
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. Respondent No. 1 was constituted under theBombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Prior thereto, it was theMalegaon Municipal Council, a statutory body established under the MaharashtraMunicipalities Act, 1965. Respondent No. 2 is the State of Maharashtra actingthrough the Director of Municipal Administration. Respondent No. 3 is theRegional Director of Municipal Administration and Commissioner, NashikDivision.2. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 20-10-1986 and 24-64987 passed by the third respondent and the Chief Officer of the first respondent; a writ of mandamus allowing the petitioner to work as Administrative Officer (Health) and for all monetary benefits of the corresponding pay scale and allowances and his proper placement in the seniority list. In the alternative, the petitioner has sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to appoint him on any alternative equivalent post to that of the sa...
Manisha Pralhad Bhosle (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR295; 2004(4)BomCR112; 2004(2)MhLj896
C.K. THAKKER, C. J.1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that her application for permitting her to practise in medicine has not been decided by the respondents. A writ of mandamus is, therefore, sought directing the respondent authorities to decide the application.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner holds B.E.M.S. Degree Certificate and is a registered Electro Homeopathic Practitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that she made an application in the prescribed format. A copy of the said application is also placed on record of the petition. In the columns relating to qualification and knowledge regarding Ayurvedic Science, it has been stated that the petitioner is S,S.C. (Secondary School Certificate Examination) as also possesses degree of Bachelor of Electropathy Medicine and Surgery (B.E.M.S.) and having 'Book Knowledge' and Medical Professional Experience. It is, therefore, submitted that it is obligatory on the responden...
Sayali Sanjay Malvankar Vs. Chief Officer, Vengurla Municipal Council ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR346; 2004(5)BomCR777; 2004(2)MhLj1013
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The petitioner was elected as a Municipal Councillor of the Vengurla Municipal Council at an election held on 2nd December, 2001. In this proceeding the petitioner has called into question an order passed by the Collector holding that the petitioner was disqualified from acting as Councillor under the provisions of Section 44(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils. Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 ('the Act'). Section 44(1)(e) provides thus :'44.(1) A Councillor shall be disqualified to hold office as such, if at any time during his term of office, he --(e) has constructed or constructs by himself, his spouse or his dependent, any illegal or unauthorized structure violating the provisions of this Act, or the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Mah. 37 or the rules or bye-laws fram...
The Himalaya Drug Company Vs. Gufic Limited, a Public Limited Company ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Bom278; 2004(3)BomCR510; 2004(29)PTC366(Bom)
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By the above Appeal from Order the Appellant is challenging the injunction order dated 10th January, 2003 granted by the II Extra Joint District Judge, Thane in a pending Suit, against the Appellant, it's Directors' partners, dealers, servants, representatives and employees from using the Trade mark 'Shallaki' for its pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. By the aforesaid order the Appellant was granted a month's time to clear off its old stock and to file a statement regarding old stock within a week. The trial Court has also expedited the hearing of the above Suit.2. The brief facts are that the Respondent No. 1 Gufic Ltd. is the registered proprietor of the trade Mark 'SALLAKI', having registration No. 385295 in Class 5. It appears that Respondent No. 1 had applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, for registration of an original and distinctive Trade Mark 'Shallaki' on 13th January, 1982 objections. Respondent No. 1 has been after inviting objecti...
John Aloysius Macwana Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ64Bom
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Respondent waives service. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to calculate and pay pension and other terminal benefits with further direction to respondents to release the same with interest at such rates as this Court deems fit and proper. It is unfortunate that after rendering 29 years of service with the respondent, the petitioner has been deprived of his terminal dues, although, he ceased to be in service from February 4, 1988. As to what delayed the release of terminal benefits has been explained on affidavit by the respondents but for the reasons indicated hereinafter, we are unable to accept the same.3. On March 16, 1959, petitioner joined services as a Driver. He was a permanent employee. It appears that after having worked till 1983, petitioner fell ill and was unable to resume duties from April 2, 1983 to March 23, 1987....
Balkrishna S.S. Kakodkar and anr. Vs. Rama Babal Vasta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Bom200; 2004(3)ALLMR505
ORDERN.N. Mhatre, J.1. The short question involved in the present petition is whether a document could be produced before the Court, in evidence, if the same has not been annexed to the affidavit which forms part of the examination-in-chief before a Court 2. The petitioners have instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 210/2000 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division at Quepem for the reliefs of mandatory injunction, and permanent injunction. An application for temporary injunction was also filed. An affidavit was filed by the petitioner No. 1 stating that the copies of the documents relied on by the petitioners were delivered to the respondent. This affidavit was filed on 21-5-1998. One of the documents which was delivered to the respondent was a copy of the construction licence. Written statement was filed on 20-6-1999 by the respondent. In accordance with the CPC, the petitioners filed affidavit-in-evidence of their first witness along with certain documents. This affidavit was filed...
Suresh K. Bhagat Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Mumbai)16
ORDERR.P. TOLAni J.M.:This set of nine appeals pertain to same assessee. Issues are inter-related. Hence, disposed of by this common order.2. Appeal No. 12/Bom/1995 for assessment year 1992-93 is taken first. Grounds raised are as under :'(1) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining following multiple and separate additions :ParticularsAmounts Rs.(i) Addition on account of alleged shortage in gold stock 13,05,331(ii) Addition on account of alleged unexplained investment in TV/VCR, etc.1,69,000(iii) Addition on account of alleged unexplained investment in vehicles, etc. at Valsad5,00,000(iv) Addition on account of alleged unrecorded realization of coal ash 80,000(v) Addition on account of alleged low household withdrawals30,000(vi) Addition on account of rejecting audited book results of Bhagat Paper & Board Mill, Valsad by estimating gross profit @ 14.5 per cent5,24,992 (vii) Loan from Amarchand Meghaji added under section 68 of...
Jt Cit Vs. Oceanic Farms (Export) (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Mumbai)821
ORDERI.P. Bansal, J.M.:This is an appeal filed by the revenue and is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 29-3-2000, for the assessment year 1997-98.2. Grounds of appeal read as under :'1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs inasmuch as in the facts of the case, the impugned amount was in the nature of assistance granted by the State Government to the assessee for the purpose of carrying on the business which was already set up by the grant received from the Central Government for setting up the business.''2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as immediately aforesaid, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the ruling of the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd v. CIT : 1997ECR787(SC) the subsidy for carrying on the business was a revenue receipt-was not applicable in the facts of the case.'3. The assessee is a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »