Mumbai Court June 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.
Sashikala W/O Ghanshyam Gaikwad Vs. Moresh Eknath Jambhulkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj1126
A.P. Lavande, J.1. This is an Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the original accused in Regular Criminal Case No. 393/93. The respondent No. 1 filed Criminal Case No. 393/93 under Sections 416, 418, 468, 471 and 476A of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur. The process was issued against the applicant on 7-10-1993. After recording evidence before the charge, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur was pleased to discharge the accused under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent No. 1 filed Criminal Revision Case No. 500/2002 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Nagpur challenging the Order of discharge. When the Revision was filed by the respondent No. 1 herein, an application dated 30-8-2003 was filed by the present applicant objecting to the maintainability of the Revision on the ground that the Revision was not maintainable as against the order passed by the learned Magistrate ...
Ultra Drytech Engineering Ltd. and anr. Vs. Vaibhav Laxman Suravkar an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR695; 2005(1)BomCR939; [2005(104)FLR539]; (2005)ILLJ951Bom; 2005(1)MhLj279
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. By the present appeal, the appellants seek to impugn the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25-9-2003 by which the learned Single Judge has set aside the Industrial Court's judgment dated 10-6-2003.2. The present appeal raises an issue of interpretation of Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU and PULP Act, 1971). We find that there are divergent views taken by two learned Single Judges of this Court one in the impugned order and judgment dated 25-9-2003 (Chandrachud J.) and another of R. J. Kochar J. in the case of V. Ramanathan v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Mumbai and anr, reported in : (2001)4BOMLR722 . Thus we are deciding the point of law posed before us in this Appeal.3. Some of the material facts, briefly enumerated are as under :-4. The appellant No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act and inter alia carries on business of manufac...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Shridhar S/O Ramchandra Mokasdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR51; 2005(1)MhLj958
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra and thereby, challenged the judgment dated 1st June, 1988, passed by Civil Judge, S.D. Wardha in Land Acquisition Case No. 80 of 1986, which arouse out of the Land Acquisition Case No. 19/LAQ-47/79/80 of village Pilapur, District Wardha.2. The respondent herein, original applicant, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short Act) prayed for enhancement of compensation, by its application dated 20th February, 1984. After considering the material and evidence on the record, by the impugned judgment, the said application was allowed and the applicant herein, State of Maharashtra, directed to pay additional compensation of Rs. 61,616/- and solatium of 30% and interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 7th August, 1980, till realisation.3. The learned Advocate Mr. Mirza, A.G.P. appearing for the appellant basically submitted that such reference application itself was not maintainable as amount of compensa...
Dayanand Vs. Asha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC228
P.B. Gaikwad, J.1. The applicant Dayanand S/o Sonu Ghodke filed present application to set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate (first class) Shrigonda dated 30.11.1996 in Maintenance Application No. 147/1995, which is later on confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 57/1997 by order dated 18.11.1998.2. The facts, in nutshell leading to the present application are that: The respondent Smt. Asha Dayanand Ghodke filed application for maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate (first class) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 17.7.1995. The gist of the contentions is that marriage of Asha performed with the opponent Dayanand on 14.12.1986 at village Shedgaon, Tal. Shrigonda. It is further alleged that the relations between applicant and opponent as husband and wife are still subsisting. It is further alleged that the opponent maintained the applicant properly for about 4 to 5 months, however, thereafter he started ill- treating ...
Bhiva Rama Pardole and ors. Vs. Collector and Deputy Director for Rese ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR126; 2005(2)BomCR413
Palshikar V.G., J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the order dated 29-9-2000 passed by the Minister, which according to the petitioner, is without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed.2. The Government acquired certain lands in Kolhapur District for rehabilitation of project affected persons and that acquisition included some land belonging to respondent No. 5 Smt. Rukmini Pandurang Sankpal. The acquisition proceedings were completed and possession of the land acquired was taken over by the State and the land so acquired was distributed to project affected persons. This aspect is specifically admitted by the respondent-State in its affidavit in reply, which is as follows :'With reference to paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3, I state that the land in the Gat No. 485 admeasuring 1-62-00 hectare was taken in possession on 12-4-1988 and the said land was distributed to the 4 project affected persons, viz. Laxman Rama Tambe, Bhiva Rama Pardole the prese...
Dattu Hari Mali @ Dattu Rau Mali Since Deceased by His Legal Heirs and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR853; 2005(2)BomCR442; 2005(2)MhLj681
Khanwilkar A.M., J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phaltan Division, Phaltan, dated April 3, 1987 in Tenancy Case No. 1 of 1981. Briefly stated, the land in question is Survey No. 609, Hissa No. 1 to 5, situated at village Khatav, taluka Khatav, District Satara, totally admeasuring about 7 acres. The predecessor of the petitioners was inducted in the suit land as permanent tenant (Mirashi tenant) under Registered Mirashi Patra dated July 2, 1889. The respondents claim to be a public trust duly registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 some time on May 29, 1955. As no proceedings for possession were pending between the parties on the tillers' day, inquiry under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was commenced in the year 1962 on the assumption that the tenant has become deemed purchaser on the tillers' day, i.e., 1st April, 1...
Borax Morarji Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC421
1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) who in the impugned order confirmed the demand for duty of Rs. 3,22,901/- and an equal amount of penalty under Section 11 A (1) and 11 AC of Central Excise Act respectively.2. The appellants manufacture excisable goods falling under Chapter heading 28, 29 & 39 Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The dispute pertains to a product called 'AGRIBOR' which was classified by the appellants as 'other fertilizer' falling under chapter sub-heading 31.05 of Central Excise Tariff Act In their classification declaration dated 1.2.99. The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No.5/99 dated 1.3.99 under which the product attracts 'Nil' rate of duty with effect from 1.3.99. The Department contends that the product did not merit classification under 31.05 in view of chapter note 6 of chapter 31 read with Boards' circular No. 392/25/98 CX dated 19.5.98 as it did not contain the requisite elements of nitrogen, phosphorous or pota...
Letape (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Mum.)339
1. The only effective ground in this appeal by the assessee, as per the learned counsel for the assessee, is the year in which the capital gains arise for being taxed. The assessee was occupying a business premises at New Delhi where audio magnetic tapes were being manufactured. This premises was under tenancy with the assessee from 31st Aug., 1970. The assessee continued to occupy the premises after the lease period. The landlord/owner had initiated eviction proceedings against the assessee. The assessee gave an undertaking to the owner to vacate the premises for consideration of Rs. 8.0 lakhs, out of which Rs. 2.0 lakhs was for surrendering the tenancy and Rs. 6.0 lakhs was for leaving behind the furniture and fixtures in the premises. The said agreement was entered into on 29th Sept., 1995. The AO brought to tax the amount of Rs. 2.0 lakhs as capital gains and the amount of Rs. 6.0 lakhs as short-term capital gains. As per the assessee, these amounts were offered for taxation in th...
Sitaram Narayan Shinde and ors. Vs. Ibrahim Ismail Rais and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR74; 2005(2)BomCR427; 2005(1)MhLj35
D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Raigad on 4th December 1990 in Civil Appeal No. 74 of 1986 confirming the decree for possession passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Pen.2. The petitioners are the heirs of Narayan Shinde who was the original tenant. The respondent No. 1 is the owner and landlord. An open plot of land admeasuring about 30' x 30' out of City Survey No. 1514/1, Pen (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) was taken on rent by Narayan Shinde, father of the petitioner No. 1. The respondent No. 1 purchased the suit property on 17th December 1963 and filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 10 of 1969 for possession. The said suit was dismissed on the ground that the tenancy of the petitioners was not properly terminated. The Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1972 filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was also dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by a notice dated 13th No...
Abdul Gafoor Usman Gani Vs. the State of Maharashtra at the Instance o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj311
D.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Ansari for the Appellant - Original Accused No. 2 and Mr. More Additional P.P. for the State.2. This Appeal is filed by the appellant original accused No. 2 against conviction under Section 29 r/w Section 21 and Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('N.D.P.S. Act' for short) by which the accused were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lac each in default of fine R.I. for six months and further conviction under Section 21 read with Section 8(c) for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default R.I. for six months. Mrs. Ansari, Advocate arguing for the accused made only the following submissions and nothing more challenging the judgment of conviction. According to her the raid was conducted by P.I. Shewale and it was he who informed the accused of their right to be taken to the Magistrate or the nearest Gazetted Officer as required under Section 50, but Mr. Shewale was not examined. P.W. 1 Bhaskarra...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »