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.
Shri Jahangir Abdul Rashid Patel and Smt. Abida Abdul Rashid Patel Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: I(2004)DMC741
P.V. Kakade, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 26th February 2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur holding them guilty of commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A r/w 34 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/= in default to suffer R.I. for two months for offence under Section 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/= in default to suffer R.I. for two months for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts giving rise to the present case. in short, are thus -3. The accused No. 1 is the son of the accused No. 2. Both are charged for murder of Razia wife of accused No. 1 by setting her on fire and also for subjecting her to cruelty to get their unlawful demand of Rs. 50,000/- satisfied prior to her death. Deceased Razia was daughter of one P.W. 1 Sugarabi Jamadar an...
The New Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR426; 2004(4)BomCR800; (2004)IIILLJ79Bom; 2004(3)MhLj266; [2004]56SCL618(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent heard forthwith.2. All the petitioners have been described as citizens of India. The petitioner No. 1 is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are its Directors. The Respondent No. 5 had moved the respondent No. 4 under the provisions of Section 49 of the Maharashtra Co-operative societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). It was the case of respondent No. 5 that they had advanced moneys to the employees employed with Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 was to deduct the instalments payable by the employees from the wages payable to such employees. The petitioner No. 1 in fact had deducted these amounts pursuant to the agreement entered into between the petitioners and respondent No. 5. However, the moneys so recovered from the wages of the employees was not forwarded or paid to the respondent No. 5. On the application moved by the respondent No. 5, notice wa...
Smt. Surajben Navalchand Shah and ors. Vs. Asian Food Products Ltd. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR135; 2004(5)BomCR256; [2006]131CompCas565(Bom); 2004CriLJ1979
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioners and the respondents/contemners.2. The complaint of the petitioners relates to non compliance of the direction issued by this Court on 7-3-2000 in relation to inspection of share registered of the respondent No. 1 contemner and also regarding non-compliance of the order dated 4-5-2000 of this Court giving direction to the respondents No. 2 to deposit 250000 shares as well as 19500 duplicate shares of the first respondent. Though the original complaint also related to some other grievances, the same were specifically given up by the petitioners in the course of hearing of the matter.3. By order dated 7-3-2000, the respondent No. 1 herein, who was the respondent No. 2 in Chamber Summons No. 1366 of 1999 in Execution Application No. 329 of 1997 in Arbitration Petition No. 112 of 1997 in relation to the Award No. 79 of 1997, it was directed that the respondent No. 2 should give inspection of the share registers t...
Pioneer Sales Agencies (P) Ltd. Vs. Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR354; 2004CriLJ3498
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. (Oral) Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have violated the order passed by this Court on 18-9-1998 in Suit No. 922 of 1997 as well as failed to comply with the undertakings given to the Court while the said suit was being disposed of by way of Consent Terms. The contention is sought to be controverted on the ground that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have assigned the said decree in favour of the M/s. Belly Realtors Pvt. Ltd, for a valuable consideration under a deed of assignment dated 27-10-1999 and therefore such a petition at the instance of the petitioners is not maintainable. It was secondly sought to be contended that the decree dated 18-9-1998 is a conditional one and therefore the non compliance thereof can entitle the decree holder to seek execution of the said decree and there cannot be an occasion for proceeding against the respondents/contemnors for conte...
Rajendra Trimbak Khairnar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: II(2005)DMC565
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed on 7.11.1998 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Sessions Case No. 97 of 1998 convicting the appellant/accused under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life, the appellant/accused has filed this appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/appellant.2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel of the defence and the learned Prosecutor we have scrutinised the entire record and have reappreciated the evidence on record. The prosecution story as emerges from the reappreciation of the evidence stated briefly is that in the night of 29th and 30th March, 1998 there was a quarrel between the accused and his wife Meena, the deceased which culminated in the accused pouring kerosene from the stove on the body of the deceased Meena and putting her on fire, as a consequence of which sh...
Sharad Vs. Baldeo Raj and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC302; 2006ACJ417
S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1. None for the respondent No. 2, though served.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 17.10.1992 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 178 of 1990 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') on the contentions that the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate.3. Brief facts are as under:The accident occurred on 26.10.1989 at about 9 a.m. in front of Gondwana Wine Shop, Ravi Nagar, Amravati Road, Nagpur. The claimant was going to attend his college on bicycle and at that time the offending truck bearing No. MTG 4200 owned by the respondent No. 1 had come from the back side in a high speed. The truck gave dash to the claimant causing him grievous injuries and consequential permanent disablement. The claimant was immediately removed to the hospital where he took medical treatment and thereafter he had...
Sophisticated Marbles and Granite Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(166)ELT318(Bom)
ORDER1. The petition is directed against the final order dated 18th December, 2003 incorporated at Exhibit - D to the petition. The challenge is at the instance of the petitioners wherein the fine and penalty is levied upon for importing marbles without the licence.2. Whenever, petitioners import marble without licence, they pay fine and penalty, as may be levied under the provisions of the Customs Act.3. In the past similar consignments were imported by the petitioners and in spite of levy of fine and penalty the petitioners continued to import marble without any licence. In other words, penalty and fine did not get as deterrent to slop further illegal import. In other words, petitioners continued to indulge in illegal import of marble without licence and litigation ensued therefrom was used to get fine and penalty reduced on technical legal pleas. This petition is product of such illegal activities of the petitioners. An act constituting import of marble without licence has given ris...
Mukund L. Vora Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR462; (2004)189CTR(Bom)62; 2004(2)MhLj603
V.C. Daga, J. 1. The petitioner is challenging an order dated 18th February 1994 passed by the Appropriate Authority, respondent No. 2 herein, under Sub-section (1) of Section 269UD of the Income- tax Act ('the Act' for short). The Appropriate Authority ordered purchase of the petitioner's property by the Central Government, for apparent consideration of Rs. 3,62,25,050/-. The petitioner has not challenged acquisition of the said property. The challenge in the petition is restricted to the impugned order to the extent of withholding a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of transfer fees allegedly payable to the co-operative housing society and secondly; the act of invoking concept of discounting envisaged under Section 269UA(b) of the Act and thereby reducing the amount of apparent consideration from Rs. 3,70,00,000/- to Rs. 3,62,25,50/-.Factual matrix:2. Undisputed factual matrix giving rise to the present petition is that under an agreement dated 24th November 1993, the petitioner agree...
Mrs. Usha A. Kalwani Vs. S.N. Soni, Commissioner of Income Tax and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Bom)409; [2005]272ITR67(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dt. 3rd Nov., 1992 (Exhibit E), passed under Section 273A of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). The fact leading to the present petition in short are:The facts :2. That on 29th Dec., 1987, when the petitioner was leaving for Singapore from Calcutta Airport, her person and baggage was searched by the customs officials at Calcutta Airport and certain enquiries were made with respect to the fixed deposit receipts which she was carrying with her, neither any action was taken by the customs authorities nor any intimation was passed on by them to the IT Department.3. On the contrary, the petitioner on her own filed her returns on 12th April, 1988 declaring her income for the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1988-89 in the sum of Rs. 17,380 and Rs. 18,440, respectively. On 27th April, 1988 she further filed her return for the asst. yrs. 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and declared her income in the sum of Rs. 50,000, 55,000, 60,000 and...
Suresh Sahebrao Kamble Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1574
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed on by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions case No. 69 of 1989 convicting the accused under Section 362 and 376 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life for the offence of murder and to suffer R.I. for 7 years for the offence of rape and again was directed that the sentences to run concurrently, the appellant has filed this appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/appellant.2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the defence and the learned Prosecutor we have scrutinised the evidence and have reappreciated the evidence on record. The prosecution story as revealed by the reappreciation of the evidence stated briefly is that on 1st May 1989 the complainant Sulbha came home in the afternoon around 6.30 p.m. and found that her daughter is missing. She therefore invited the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »