Mumbai Court September 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.
Manik Sahadu Borshe Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR809; 2005(1)BomCR68; [2005(105)FLR224]; (2005)IILLJ63Bom; 2005(1)MhLj869
Kanade V.M., J.1. Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'CAT') whereby his application was dismissed and the order of termination was confirmed.2. Brief facts are as under : -3. Petitioner was working as Head Booking Clerk at Titwala Railway Station, Central Railway. Between the period from 1-9-1989 to 10-9-1989, there was a short remittance of Rs. 61,532/-, as a result of which petitioner was suspended on 14-9-1989. The charge-sheet was issued on 20-11-1989. The allegation in the charge-sheet against the petitioner was that he did not deposit the amount as required under the rules and, therefore, there was short remittance of the said amount. An inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer who examined 7 witnesses. Two statements of the petitioner dated 11-9-1989 and 16-9-1989 which were recorded earlier were also brought on record. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report and held that the charges wer...
Malan Maroti Gajbhe Vs. Sub Area Manager and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR78; 2005(2)BomCR210
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.2. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18-7-2003 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act i.e. respondent No. 2 in P.G. Appeal No. N/48(8)/2003 quashing and setting aside the earlier order 17th February, 2003 delivered by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandrapur.3. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandrapur was approached by the present petitioner claiming gratuity due to deceased Maroti Gajbhe claiming that Maroti Gajbhe was her husband and he expired after putting near about 17 years of service. The present respondent No. 4 Smt. Rekha was applicant No. 2 in those proceedings as she also claims to be the legally wedded wife of Late Maroti Gajbhe and claimed the very same amount from the respondent No. 1.4. After giving due opport...
National Tiles and Marble Company Vs. Joshi and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR835
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Heard Shri B.N. Mohta for the petitioner and Advocate V.V. Bhangade for the respondent.2. The petitioner in this petition has challenged three interlocutory orders passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur on 5th July, 2004. By his order passed below Exh. 1209 the Court has found that there is no question of giving any exhibit marks to the documents at that stage and therefore, has rejected application at Exh. 1209. However, there is further observation by the Court which reads:It is the attempt to fill up lacuna without proving the documents by adopting legal process laid down in the Act.'Mr. B.N. Mohta, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, says that these are unwanted observations which tend to conclude the issue at a premature stage, he therefore, praying for quashing and setting aside the said order.3. Mr. Bhangade, Advocate appearing for the respondent, fairly concedes to this position and gives his ...
Shantaram N. Pawar and anr. Vs. State of Goa as Represented by Officer ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR425
N.A. Britto, J.1. The appellants herein are accused In Sessions Case No. 4/2000 who were charged and tried, inter alia, under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the I. P. C., and who have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 384, 427, 392 r/w Section 149 of the I.P.C. to different periods of imprisonment and to fines.2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1/2004 were accused Nos. 2 and 3 and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 3/2004 were accused Nos. 4 to 9 in the said Sessions Case. A. 1 Pramod M. Naik died in the course of the trial.3. The incident giving rise to the said Sessions Case took place on 21.2.1999 at Dhargal, Pernem, within the jurisdiction of Pernem Police Station between 16.30 to 17.30 hrs. The said incident took place, as was conveyed to the Police Station on telephone, between the tourists and locals. A group of about 59 persons working for the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (M.S.R.T.C.) had come to Ratnaguiri for a...
Arvindbhai Kanaiyalal Desai and ors. Vs. A. Balkrishna Bhatt and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC68
P.V. Karade, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties. Perused the record.3. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award passed by the Second Addl. District Judge and Addl. Member, M.S.C.T. Palghar, in Motor Accident Claims Application No. 186 of 2001 (Old No. 622 of 1990), on limited ground regarding quantum of interest awarded by the lower Court while allowing the application.4. The accident took place on National Highway No. 8, Near Amboli, Tal. Dahanu at about 7.30 p.m. on 8th June, 1990 in which one Sandeep Desai died. The appellant preferred M.A.C.A. No. 186 of 2001 (Old No. 622 of 1990) before the M.A.C.T. Thane on 20thNovember, 1990 but later on the same was transferred to the Court of M.A.C.T., Palghar. After hearing both parties and recording evidence, on 14th November, 2003 the Addl. Member, M.A.C.T., Palghar passed judgment and award granting compensation of Rs. 2,03,500/- together with simple interest at the...
indersen @ Vakil Ramsurat Yadav and Indravati Ramsurat Yadav Vs. the S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ464; 2005(1)MhLj334
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence dated 18.11.1198 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay in Sessions Case No. 796/1995 against the appellants, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.2. With the assistance of the learned advocate for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor we have scrutinized and reappreciated the evidence on record.3. The prosecution story briefly is that on 16.3.1995 which was a Holi day the incident occurred in Panchambhayya Chawl, Ghatipada, Mulund Wels, Mumbai where there was a quarrel between the victim and the accused over petty matter of sprinkling water on that day. The quarrel was repeated in the evening and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 immediately after the quarrel stabbed the deceased Babasaheb Kharat as a result of which he died. The accused were therefore arrested and prosecuted. The prosecution examined in all nine witnesses to prove its cas...
Mohammad Hanif Abdul Masjid Isane and ors. Vs. Juned Mohammad Jalal an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR843; 2005(1)BomCR613; 2005(1)MhLj233
V.C. Daga, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 19th January, 2001 passed below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No. 65 of 2000 by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibaug, whereby defendant Nos. 1 to 3 or anybody claiming through them were temporarily restrained from carrying out the work of quarrying in the suit property in any manner whatsoever until disposal of the suit.The Facts :2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :The appellants herein are the original defendant Nos. 1 to 3, whereas respondents are original plaintiff Nos. 1 to 6. The property, which is the subject matter of this litigation, is the property bearing Gat No. 341 (old Revision Survey No. 72) admeasuring about 6 Hectors 14.5 Ares situated at village Tol Budruk, taluka - Mahad, district - Raigad (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property' for short).3. The above suit property admittedly belonged to one Shri Mohammad Abdul alias Gazi Khot viz. Mohammad Ibrahim Hurjuk ('Gazi Kho...
A-1 Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. R. Jaikishan and Co. and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR50; 2005(1)MhLj118
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard Mr. learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. learned counsel for the respondent.2. These two writ petitions arise out of the common judgment and order dated 21-7-1986 rendered by the Co-operative Appellate Court by which three revision applications were disposed of. The first revision application was filed by the disputant (for short 'the firm') who is respondent No. 1 in the first Writ Petition No. 1915 of 1987 and the petitioner in the second Writ Petition No. 1585 of 1987. The second revision was filed by original opponent No. 1 - society (for short 'the society') who is the petitioner in the first petition and respondent No. 1 in the 2nd petition. The third revision was filed by the original opponent No. 2 to 9 who are respondent Nos. 2 to 9 in both the petitions (for short 'respondent Nos. 2 to 9'). All three revisions were filed against the judgment and order dated 23-4- 1986 passed by the Co-operative Court in the application seeking amendment of the d...
State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Ramesh Jagannath Dhadil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR71; (2005)107BOMLR823; 2005(1)MhLj508
Gokhale H.L., J.1. This writ petition seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 6th August, 2001 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'MAT') allowing Original Application No. 600 of 2001 filed by the respondent, who is an employee of the Fisheries Department of the State Government working under petitioner No. 2. The order passed by the MAT directed petitioner No. 2-The Commissioner (Fisheries) to revoke the order of suspension which was passed against the respondent.2. The brief facts leading to this petition are as follows :- The respondent was working as an Assistant Fisheries Development Officer at the relevant time under petitioner No. 2. It is alleged that an amount of Rs. 500/- was paid by one Mr. Patil to one Mr. Dangre, an officer superior to the respondent on 8th September, 2000 to get his work done. Out of this amount of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 200/- was supposed to have been passed over to the respondent. A trap was led and Mr. Dangre was caught therein. A...
Tanaji Abaso Pawar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR76; 2005(3)BomCR453; 2005(1)MhLj1048
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in all these civil revision applications, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.3. In all these applications the applicants challenge the rejection of their applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called as 'the said Act' which were filed by the applicants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer consequent to acquisition of their land. The applications have been rejected on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in terms of the award passed under Section 11 of the said Act was accepted by the applicants without lodging protest.4. Placing reliance in the decision of this Court in the matter of Manjiri Ranganath Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, reported in : (2003)2BOMLR118 , the learned Advocat...