Mumbai Court August 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.
Maharashtra State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR621; 2005(1)BomCR701; (2005)107BOMLR660; 2005(1)MhLj13
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel appearing for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Ms. Panchakshari waives notice for respondent.3. As short question is involved, the matter is heard for final disposal forthwith, by consent.4. The respondent filed dispute before the Co-operative Court No. 1, Pune at Pune being Dispute No. 74 of 1996 on the assertion that he was an employee as Grade VI Officer in the petitioner Bank. In substance, the respondent questioned the order passed by the District Branch Manager dated 16th/18th September, 1995, whereby, his (respondent No. l's) services were transferred from the post of Assistant District Branch Manager to the post of the Statistical Officer, on the ground that the said order was issued without authority, as no prior sanction of the Chairman District Loan Sanctioning Committee, Pune was obtained before issuance of that order, which was mandatory. Besides, it is asserted that the said order is the outcome of i...
Mr. B.B. Paymaster and ors. Vs. Mrs. Baurawa Sangappa Kadapatti,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR666; 2005(1)BomCR190; 2004CriLJ813a; 2005(2)MhLj137
Abhay S. Oka, J.1. On July 27th and 29th July 2004 this Appeal was heard finally. The order impugned in the Appeal is an order rejecting an Application for Probate filed by the Appellants. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the case made out in the Civil Application No. 1437 of 2002, this Appeal was taken up for final hearing out of turn.2. The Appellants applied for grant of Probate in respect of the alleged last will dated 29th April 1998 of late Dr. (Miss) Indu Shankarrao Patwardhan. the will is a registered will. The Application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') was filed by the Appellants claiming to be the Executors appointed under the said will. The Testator died on 8th February 1999. It is stated in the Application that the only real brother of Testator passed away 40 years ago and the said brother is survived by his widow Mrs. Laila Patwardhan his son Shri Pranay Patwardhan and a dau...
Shri Kisan Ramchandra Talekar Vs. the General Manager, Maharashtra Sta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC834; 2006ACJ454; 2004(6)BomCR593; [2005(105)FLR40]; 2005(1)MhLj748
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition arises out of the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at KOlhapur dated 26.6.1996. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has allowed the claim filed by the petitioner, however, penalty on the amount of compensation awarded has been refused on the ground that there was a delay in filing the application. Under Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Commissioner is expected to award interest on the compensation as well as penalty if a case has been made out that the employer had refused the compensation as payable under the Act without reason.2. The facts in the present case are not disputed. The Petitioner was a driver employed with the Maharashtra State Transport Corporation, Respondent No. 1 herein. While on duty on 18.3.1991, he met with an accident which caused serious injuries to his right leg and other injuries all over his body. The workman was admitted into hospital and treated for over one and a half years as a...
Murlidhar Roongta Vs. S. Jagannath Tibrewala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR420; 2005(1)ARBLR103(Bom); 2005(1)BomCR228; [2006]133CompCas70(Bom); 2005(2)MhLj285; [2005]57SCL128(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The learned Counsel appearing for both sides are agreed that common question of law and facts are involved in these two petitions, therefore, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. In Arbitration Petition No. 595 of 2001, Award dated 29th May, 2001, which was amended by order dated 20th July, 2001 and 23rd July, 2001, is challenged.In Arbitration Petition No. 594 of 2001, interim award dated 2nd March, 2001 and the Award dated 29th May, 2001 is challenged.3. By the award challenged in Arbitration Petition No. 595 of 2001 the Petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 16,69,508 which was reduced by order dated 23rd July, 2001 to Rs. 16,17,799. This amount is directed to be paid with interest which is specified in the award. The Respondent No. 1 has been directed, on receiving payment from the Petitioners, to deliver certain securities to the Petitioner.By the award which is challenged in the Arbitration Petition No. 594 of 2001, the Petit...
Shantiniketan (Air-India) Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Pra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR640
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. Petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act consisting of various tenements purchased initially by the employees of Air India Corporation and its subsidiaries. Respondent No. 1 is a private limited company, of which respondent No. 2 is the Managing Director and was entrusted with the further development of building Nos. 26 and 17-A in terms of the Development agreement dated 29th March, 1997. Certain differences arose between the parties, which resulted in respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filing suit in this Court, being Suit No. 3625 of 2000 for recovery of amounts and injunction against the petitioner society. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents Nos. 3 to 5 falsely claim to have purchased the disputed flat No. 301, 401 and 501 in building No. 26 from the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. According to the petitioner, the said respondents Nos. 3 to 5 have aided and abetted and actively par...
Ramu Mahatang Patel Vs. Rajkumar Dayaram Patel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR223; 2005(2)MhLj127
P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.The petitioner contested the election to 119 - Melghat (ST) assemblyConstituency. Respondent No. 1 - Rajkumar Patel was declared elected by margin of 3335 votes, the petitioner polled 40363 votes, whereas respondent No.1 polled 43698 votes and respondent No. 2 - Dr. Ramesh Raikwar polled 14533votes. The election was contested by 8 candidates. The 119 Melghat (SC)Assembly Constituency was reserved for Scheduled Tribe Candidate. The respondent No. 2 - Dr. Ramesh Raikwar does not belong to Scheduled TribeCandidate. The Nomination Paper of respondent No. 2 was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer in spite objection recorded by petitioners Polling Agent.2. The petitioner challenged the election of respondent No. 1 in this election petition Under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on various grounds. The petitioner prayed that the election of respondent No. 1 as Member of Legislative Assembly of 110 - Melgh...
Syed Yousuf S/O Syed Lal Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj187
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1.This appeal arises from an order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2001, on 15th April, 2002, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as, the appellant had killed his two minor daughters, by name, Shahnaz and Najama.2. As per the prosecution case, the appellant/accused was married to Sayarabi about 12 years prior to the date of incident. They begot two sons and four daughters. However, the sons had died immediately after their birth. The names of the daughters were Parvin, Shahnaz, Najama and Sultana. The last daughter was an infant on the date of the incident, whereas Parvin was about 9 years; Shahnaz was about 6 years; Najama was of 3 years; and Sultana was few months old. They were initially staying at village Kanphodi and the accused was not doing any work inspite of his parents telling him to undertake some work. The couple, therefore, shifted ...
Ramnath P. Desai Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR439]
P.V. Hardas, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed, principally seeking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service by accepting his withdrawal of his option to take benefit under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages and allow him to continue in service until he attains the age of superannuation. This petition came to be admitted .by this Court on (sic) January, 2001. However, no interim stay was granted to the petitioner.2. The facts, in brief, as aw necessary to the decision of the petition, can be stated thus:The petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher in the 'Shri Shantadurga High School,' Bicholim-Goa. The said School, where the petitioner was working, is an aided school. By an Office Memorandum dated 15.5.2000, the Government introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, hereinafter, referred to as 'VRS', for the sake...
Crown Shipping Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC721
1. Commissioner vide the impugned order has cancelled CHA licence No.11/427 of the appellant after coming to the following findings - "I have gone through the case records and considered all the aspects of the case. The Enquiry Officer has held only the Article of Charge I against M/s Crown Shipping Agency in the case of Ms Valco Overseas, as proved and held all the other charges against the CHA as not proved. The articles of Charge-I related to the charge of sale or transfer of licence by CHA. S/Shri Ramesh Singh and Ramdutt Singh had confirmed in their statements that they were engaged in the clearance of goods through customs and did not have CHA licence and Shri M.I. Qureshi, partner of M/s Crown Shipping Agency used to come to their office to sign the shipping bills and other documents. Shri Qureshi had in his statements confirmed that he had filed and signed the Shipping Bills of M/s Valco Overseas; that he did not know the exporter and his employee Shri V.H Jadhav has also sign...
Grant Medical Foundation Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT950Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants had imported and cleared certain medical equipments after availing benefit of Notification No. 64/88 after producing required entitlement certificate from the Directorate General of Health Service. Pursuant to an information, enquiries were made and proceedings were initiated to deny the benefit of the said Notification inasmuch the appellants were found to have not adhered & meted the conditions prescribed under the said Notification. Proceedings initiated vide Show Cause Notice dated 26.12.2000 in respect of the equipments imported and cleared during the period June 1998 and February 1994 proprietary duty demand of Rs. 4,40,31,340/- under the proviso to Section 28 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and liability for confiscation under Section 111 (o) and Penalty under Section 112 (a) was confirmed. The machinery was ordered to be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The importers were given an option to redeem the same on paym...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »