Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Shri Damodar Jivan Mhatre Vs. Smt. Bebibai Baburao Mhatre and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR70; 2006(1)MhLj805

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This Second Appeal arises from the decree of partition passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Palghar on 3/1/1989 in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 1986 and duly confirmed by the 4th Additional District Judge at Thane in Civil Appeal No.61 of 1989 which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 23/1/1991. While admitting this appeal on 26/8/1991 this Court framed the substantial question of law for consideration in the following words: 'There involves a relating to the procedural framing the points for lower Appellate substantial question error in not determination by the Court.'2. It is seen from the judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court that it had framed the following issue and answered in the negative: Is there any necessity to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court?' It is also pertinent to note that in the memo of this second appeal the appellant has not framed any substantial question of law for the considera...

Bara Imam Masjid Trust and ors. Vs. the Charity Commissioner and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR27; 2006(2)BomCR63; (2006)108BOMLR13; 2006(1)MhLj809

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. These two writ petitions are challenging the common order passed by the Charity Commissioner, Pune dated 19.4.2005 refusing to grant permission under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 to the petitioners for the sale of the trust property. Since both the writ petitions are arising out of a common order, both of them are disposed of together by this common judgment. 2. Some of the material facts in Writ Petition 3965 of 2005 are briefly enumerated as under.3. The petitioner trust is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) bearing PTR No. B-189 (ANR). Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are trustees of the petitioner no. trust. The trust owns land bearing survey nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23 admeasuring 15 hectares and 29 Ares situated at Savedi, Ahmednagar. The said land is situated in the heart of the city. After the commencement of the trust, some time in or about 1994, an application wa...

Shri Filipe Nery Rodrigues, Member of the Legislative Assembly of Goa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR424; (2006)108BOMLR227

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. S.K. Kakodkar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M.S. Sonak and Mr. P.S. Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.G. Aney, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V.P. Thali and Ms. G. Pednekar, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, Mr. S.G. Dessai, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dessai, the leaned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. A.F. Diniz, the learned Counsel fox respondent No. 3. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.02.2005 passed by the Honourable Speaker, Goa Legislative Assembly, declaring the petitioner disqualified as a Member of the House in accordance with Clause 2 of para 2 of the Xth Schedule of the Constitution of India as well under Article 161(2) of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Kakodkar, the learned Senior Counsel placed before us the following facts and circumstances which have resulted in the Speaker passing the impugned order : On 1st June, 2002, the petitioner was ele...

Smt. Vaishali Samant, Lecturer in Mathematics, Ponda Education Society ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR12; 2006(2)BomCR46; (2006)108BOMLR199; 2006(2)MhLj885

N.A. Britto, J.1. The petitioners who are lecturers in respondent No. 4, Ponda Education Society's College of Arts and Science, an aided College by the Government of Goa (respondent No. 1), and affiliated to the Goa University (respondent No. 3) and whose service conditions are governed by the Goa University Act, 1984 (Act, for short), and the Statutes framed thereunder, in these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, assail the stand of the Government in not recognizing the grant of the Senior scales to them, in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000, by the College as well as by the University with effect from 01.06.1988, 20.06.1986 and 20.06.1993, respectively, and, consequently, the action of the Government ordering the recovery of payments made to them as well as the action of denying to the petitioners the benefits of Fifth Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1986 on the plea that the petitioners would be entitled to the said senior scales from 20.06.1995, 20.0...

Rajkumar S/O Laxmanprasad Kesarwani Vs. Returning Officer and Tahsilda ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR682; 2006(2)BomCR32; 2006(1)MhLj445

J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.This matter arises from a reference made by a two Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Rajkumar s/o Laxmanprasad Kesarwani v. Returning Officer and Tahsildar, Tirora and Ors. respondents (Writ Petition No. 2701/04) for determination of the following question by a Larger Bench :-Whether it is necessary for a candidate contesting election from the Constituency as provided under Section 13(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, to be a voter from that Constituency, apart from he being an agriculturist?2. The controversy has arisen in the context of the interpretation of the eligibility of a person to be a candidate for contesting an election from the constituency prescribed under Section 13(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and the Rules governing the said elections as provid...

Balasaheb S/O Pandharinath Borade Vs. Abdulla S/O Mohammad Bagwan

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2007)BC141; 2006(2)MhLj258

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard.2. Rule.3. Shri B. R. Sontakke Patil, learned advocate for respondent waives service.4. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.5. The petitioner moved application in the trial Court praying for correction in the cheque number 176087 as cheque No. 176037. The application was opposed and has been rejected. The learned trial Judge observed as follows :7. ...It is one of the defence of the accused that, cheque placed on record is not the cheque issued by the accused and therefore if the application is allowed and amendment intended to be carried out, is allowed, there is every likelihood of the rights of the accused will be prejudice....(portion extracted from para 7 of order below Exh.63 in S.C.C. No. 586/99)Learned trial Judge rejected the application holding that from plain reading of the xerox copy of the cheque which is placed on record, there is no room for confusion in reading all the digits. This order is challenged in this petition. Learned...

Pratibha Naitthani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom259; 2006(3)ALLMR213; 2006(2)BomCR41; [2006]4CompCas544(Bom)

Lodha R.M., J.1. We heard Mr. M.M. Vashi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.A. Desai, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India for respondent Nos. 1 and 10, Mr. I.M. Chhagla, the learned senior Counsel for respondent No. 4, Dr. V.V. Tulzapurkar, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 7 and Mr. P.M. Mokashi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader.2. This Writ Petition is at the instance of a teacher who is, inter alia, aggrieved by telecast of adult and obscene films shown by the electronic media and the obscene posters and photographs printed by the print media.3. Various orders came to be passed from time to time by this Court in the Writ Petition.4. On 1st September, 2004 this Court issued following directions : 'In these circumstances, this Court is left with no option but, to pass the following directions:(a) We direct Nos. 3 to 9 to give details of 'A' rated films telecast on T.V. Channels during last three months. In the affidavit, they must di...

Arun Gulab Gavali Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ2615

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking relief in the nature of direction o the respondents to record statement of the petitioner in the presence of his advocate and medical officer and further to prohibit the respondents from undertaking Narcotic Analysis Test, lie detector test or a brain mapping test on the petitioner as well as to withdraw the notice dated 16th November, 2005 issued for taking the petitioner to Bangalore.2. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no procedure contemplated under the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure to compel a witness to undergo Narcotic Analysis Test. Besides, as such test involve injection of certain solution in the body of the witness, there is a possibility of invasion of some other disease in the body of the petitioner if he is compelled to undergo such test. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the respondents cannot compel the witness to be taken to different places ...

Ramalu Balkrishna Sagar Vs. Rambhau Tukaram Shendre and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2006)ACC641; 2006(2)ALLMR522

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal by owner of a truck takes exception to the order passed by learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation directing the appellant, among other things, to pay penalty to the extent of 25% of compensation awarded to the parents of appellant's deceased employee/driver.2. The appellant owned vehicle No. MH-31/W-4943. On 1.6.2001 in an accident driver Subhash died. Subhash was son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, claimants before the Commissioner. The appellant did not deposit any amount towards compensation with the Commissioner nor did he pay any amount to the parents of the deceased employee. The appellant, however, informed respondent No. 3 Insurance Company of the accident on 7.6.2001, since the truck was insured with respondent No. 3. On 9.8.2001 respondent Nos. I and 2 filed claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. In para 6 of their claim petition they also claimed penalty to the extent of 50% of compensation claimed, since compensation was...

Rivaa Textile Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue relates to illicit removal of processed fabrics. The appeals have been filed by the appellants against the demand of Excise duty of Rs. 24,28,284/- (Rupees Twenty four lakhs twenty eight thousand two hundred eighty four only) + Rs. 1,38,314/- (Rupees One lakh thirty eight thousand three hundred fourteen only) = Rs. 25,76,598/-(Rupees Twenty five lakhs seventy six thousand five hundred ninety eight only) and imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only).2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are: The appellants are the processors of man made fabrics. On 16-9-96, the Officers of Central Excise visited the godown-cum-business premises of the appellants. The Officers allegedly recovered the register alleged to have been maintained by one Shri S.D. Tiwari containing the details of lotwise receipts of processed man made fabrics received from the appellant's factory and number of sarees obtained after cutting and packing against respective lot numbers sh...