Mumbai Court October 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.
Sanjay Pralhadrao Singalwar Vs. Zilla Parishad and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR71
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-employee challenges order dated 26-4-2004 passed by Labour Court, Amravati in U.L.P Complaint No. 74 of 2002 rejecting his prayer for grant of interim relief and Judgment dated 11-6-2004 delivered by Industrial Court in U.L.P Revision No. 30 of 2004.2. I have heard Advocate A.M. Ghare for the petitioner and Advocate N.P. Dhote for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As the point involved is very short, the matter is taken up for final disposal.Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.3. Brief facts giving rise for filing of this petition can be summarised as under:The petitioner is Gram Sevak in the employment of the respondents and on 11-9-2000 he was issued charge-sheet for various misconducts including misappropriation, irregular expenditure, not making Gram Panchayat records available for inspection etc. The employee in reply to the charge-sheet denied all the charges...
Monish H. Bhalla Vs. Satya Parkash Bahl Alias S.P. Bahl Alias S.P. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1827
ORDERV.K. Tahilramani, J.1. The applicant i.e. original complainant who is the Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, has filed this revision application being aggrieved by the order dated 16th June, 2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Union Territory of Dadra Nagar Havell at Silvassa in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 3 of 2004. By the said order, the learned Special Judge discharged the respondent Satya Prakash Bahl alias S.P. Behl alias S.P. S/o Late Gyanchand Bhal, Satya Prakash Bahl was the original accused No. 2 in the said case.2. I have heard Mr. Pradhan, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr. D.N. Mehta for Respondent No. 1, Mr. A.S. Shitole A.P.P. for Respondent No. 2-State and Mr. S.D. Patil for respondent No. 3.3. The complainant had filed complaint against three accused persons i.e. original accused No. 1 Bankim Shah, original accused No. 3 Chandra Prakash Sharma alias Shankar Sharma and respondent No. 1 Satya Prakash who was acc...
Prakash Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC259
2. The Ld. SDR appeared for the revenue. In the order impugned before me the Commissioner (A) has upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 6,45,150, imposed equal amount of penalty, ordered confiscation of land, building, plant & machinery allowed to be redeemed on payment of Rs. 1 Lakh, the penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed on the managing director and a further penalty of Rs. 20,000 has been imposed on the general manager. The case relates to clandestine removal. The appellants have paid the entire duty amount. In addition to the duty, they have also paid Rs. 1,61,288 being 25% of the penalty amount imposed on the appellant Vide TR6 Challan No. 003/2001 dated 21.11.2001. In their written submission the appellant have inter alia contended that the goods were never removed from the factory without payment of excise duty, all the goods were actual in balance. The fact is that the Angles, Beams and Channels ...
Smt. Shanta Tukaram Kasare Vs. Father Milton Gonsalves the Sole Truste ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR346; 2005(3)BomCR417; 2005(2)MhLj344
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.3. The petitioner challenges the proceedings initiated by the respondent for eviction of the petitioner form the suit premises under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ('the said Act' for short) as well as the orders passed by the Competent Authority dated 3rd March 1999 and by the Revisional Authority on 31st May 2003 on three grounds. The challenge is three-fold. Firstly, that the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings in the absence of written agreement in relation to the alleged tenancy between the parties. Secondly, the application did not disclose the rent amount, if any, agreed between the parties payable for occupation of the premises and, in the absence of the basic ingredient of the lease agreement between the parties, there was no jurisdictional fact in existence which could enable th...
Abdul Rahim B. Attar, Vs. Atul Ambalal Barot and Rajendra Ambalal Baro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Bom120; 2005(2)ALLMR8; 2005(3)BomCR388; 2005(1)MhLj1115
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in all these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.3. The petitioners challenge the concurrent orders passed by the courts below staying the suits filed by the petitioners for the eviction of the respondents on different grounds available under the Rent Legislation in force in the State. The Trial Court, while allowing the application for stay of the suit filed by the respondents, has passed the impugned order in exercise of powers under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code observing that though there is no case for grant of stay in exercise of powers under Section 10 of C.P.C. since the respondents have already filed an application for formation of a cooperative society and for acquisition of the property under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act ('MHAD Act' for short), the ends of justice would requi...
Mahadeorao Govindrao Raut Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR351; 2005(2)BomCR199
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India the petitioner, CL-III licence holder, challenges order dated 8th May, 1992 passed by respondent No. 1 State Government in revision under Section 138 of Bombay prohibition Act and order dated 21-5-1992 passed by Collector, Akola asking him to discontinue the business in his shop for its shifting elsewhere. The necessary facts in brief can be summarised as under:2. The petitioner is an ex-employee of Indian Air Force and in 1973 in that capacity got CL-III licence. Earlier shop was at Rautwadi area and because of insistence of the then minister it was required to be shifted to Jatharpeth area of Akola town in 1978 and since then the shop is functioning in the said area till this date.3. On 13-9-1990 respondent No. 2 Collector issued show cause notice as to why the petitioner CL-III licence should not be cancelled. The said show cause notice was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. ...
Saurabh S. Pakale Vs. Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR117
Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. Upon passing the Xth Standard Secondary School Certificate Examination in 2001-02, the petitioner enrolled as a regular student in the XIth Standard at the Ramnarayan Ruia College. As a regular student, the petitioner failed in the XIth Standard Examination. The subjects chosen by the petitioner for the XIth standard included Electronics, a subject which is a part of the Vocational Stream. On 10th July, 2003, the petitioner filed an application for obtaining enrollment as a private candidate at the H.S.C. Examination to be held in March, 2004. Amongst the printed conditions that were accepted by the petitioner, was a specific conditions to the effect that he was prepared to select only those subjects which are allowed to be offered for the H.S.C. Examination by a private candidate. The petitioner, while filling the application form, accepted that he was aware that he was not eligible to offer technical and vocational subjects as a private candidate. The instructi...
Kamlesh R. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Bom)323; [2006]286ITR684(Bom)
1. Heard.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith.3. The advocate on record for the Revenue waives service.4. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, rule is treated on board for final hearing.5. Having taken into consideration the relevant aspects, we are of the view that the application made by the petitioner on 10th Nov., 1998, seeking extension under Section 80HHC(2)(a) for realisation of outstanding export proceeds requires reconsideration. It appears from the available record that for the export vide invoice Nos. 13/1996-97, dt. 29th March, 1997, and 14/1996-97, dt. 31st March, 1997, the payment has been received on various dates viz., 9th Oct., 1997, 10th Oct., 1997, 28th Oct., 1997, 27th Nov., 1998, 15th Jan., 1998, 11th Feb., 1998, 20th Feb., 1998, 10th March, 1998 and 12th March, 1998. The payment that has been received is delayed. The explanation given by the assessee for delayed receipt of proceeds for exports vide aforesaid invoices was Asian currency crisis in S...
Sheshrao S/O Gurappa Bolegave Vs. Shivram S/O Amrutrao Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj1102
A.B. Naik, J.1. This Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (for short 'the Constitution') challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Latur in File No. 1981/TNC/WS/334 decided on 12th July, 1985 answering the issue of tenancy which was referred to by the Civil Court. The said order was challenged by the present petitioner by filing an appeal before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Latur in File No. 87/TNC/UDG/2 who, by his order dated 13th February, 1986, confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Tahsildar and dismissed the appeal. Both the orders passed by the Addl. Tahsildar as well as Deputy Collector, were the subject-matter of Revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') under Section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Member of the Tribunal, dismissed the Revision Application by his judgment and order dated 20th Nove...
Vasantrao Mukundrao Deshmukh Vs. Purushottam Balwantrao Agarkar and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR358
Dharmadhikari B.P., J. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order passed by Resident Deputy Collector, Buldana on 24-1-1992. By the said order the Resident Deputy Collector. Appellate Authority under Clause 21 of C.P. & Berar (Letting of Houses) and Rent Control Order, 1949 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner/tenant and has upheld the orders dated 12-6-1989 and 30-6-1989 passed by the Rent Controller, Khamgaon. By the order dated 12-6-1989 the Rent Controller has rejected the application moved by present tenant for setting aside ex parte order and by the order dated 30th June, 1989 the said Authority has granted permission to present respondent landlord to terminate tenancy of the petitioner under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and (v) of C.P. and Berar (Letting of Houses) and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short 'Rent Control Order'). Necessary facts in this respect can be briefly summarise thus :2. The respondent landlord filed proceedings on 12th October, 1988 before the Rent Control...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »