Mumbai Court February 2005 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.
Gajanan Babu Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR564
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Petitioner joined services of Respondent No. 1 in the Accounts Department as Lower Division Clerk. In the year 1977, F.I.R. came to be lodged against the Petitioner and three others for the offences punishable under Section 420, 380, 411 and 120(b) of I.P.C. The investigation was conducted by A.G.P. and Criminal Case was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, Esplanade, Bombay. The Petitioner was suspended by order of 6.1.1977. The Petitioner along with another amongst the five accused, were discharged. In fact the discharge order of 24.7.1988 would show that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that there was no evidence and that the Petitioner and another had no connection with the transaction and A.P.P. had conceded the position. The Respondents did not prefer any appeal or revision against the order of discharge.2. By an order of 24.7.1978 the order of suspension was reviewed and the petitioner was reinstated. On 9.7.1981 Petitioner re...
Yashwant Yadav Mhase Vs. G.M. Shaha, (Since Deceased, Through Legal Re ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR440
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard Ms Godse, learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents, though served, remained absent. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 29.1.2004 passed by the executing Court below applications-Exhibits 22 and 1 in Spl.Darkhast No.53 of 1996, by which the application filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased-judgment debtor has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1996 passed by the trial Court in Spl. Civil Suit No.158 of 1995 has been declared nullity on the ground that it was passed against a dead person. The respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased-judgment debtor. The suit was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.48,474/- from the deceased-defendant. 3. The short question falls for my consideration is that after the judgment and decree is declared nullity on the ground that it was passed against a dead person whether or not it is ...
Joseph Dias and ors. Vs. Vinod Pandey and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Bom255; 2005(3)BomCR264; 2005(2)MhLj760
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. Writ Petition (L) No. 582 of 2005 is filed by two individuals who claim to be office bearers of one Catholic Secular Forum. Writ Petition (L) No. 585 of 2005 is filed by the Bombay Catholic Sabha, a Public Charitable Trust and its President. Both these petitions are about an Indian film made in English language by name 'Sins', which is to be released tomorrow, i.e. Friday, 25th February, 2005. Both these petitions are filed on the basis of the promotion material of this film and the news reports about the same as they have appeared in various newspapers as well as T. V. Channels. The petitioners point out that in all this promotion material, there is a depiction of a catholic priest with a lady, both in a semi-nude condition. The lady is wearing a cross around her neck and the priest is holding a rosary and is in a priestly dress. It is submitted that this kind of vulgar depiction may bring down the institution of the priesthood and the church and it would lead ...
Waman S/O Gulabrao Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj1154
S.T. Kharche, J.1. This criminal revision takes an exception to the judgment and order of conviction dated 20-6-2002 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1995 whereby she dismissed the appeal and reduced the substantive sentence from six months rigorous imprisonment to 15 days rigorous imprisonment by maintaining the substantive sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the trial Court and in default the applicant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under :On 10-1-1985 complainant Kusum (P.W. 1) and her husband Manikrao Choudhary (P.W. 3) along with their kids had come to village Adasa in the fair and they had started one hotel there for the purpose of earning money. In the night, this couple along with their children went to take a shelter in a chhapri for night halt. Kusum was sleeping on one side, her husband and kids were sleeping by her side. At about 12 O'clock in the night,...
Zaveed Pharukhi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR106; 2005(4)BomCR244; 2005(2)MhLj1061
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This is an Appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 30th November, 2004, dismissing the appellants' Petition. The appellants have filed the Petition for an order declaring appellant Nos. 1 and 2 as guardians of the ward viz. newly born baby boy namely FARAZ (formerly known as 'Sohail'); for an order declaring that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have the legal exclusive and valid custody of the said child and for an order declaring that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 as such will be entitled to take him out of the country to their place of residence.2. Appellant No. 4 is the wife of appellant No. 3. Appellant No. 2 is the wife of appellant No. 1.3. Appellant No. 1 is a citizen of India. Appellant No. 2 is a citizen of the United States of America (U.S.A.). Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 reside in U.S.A. At present they reside in Canada and desire to take the child to Canada. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were married on 21st January, 1998. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have no children....
Namdeo Govinda Hiwale Vs. Arjun Namdeo Hiwale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR600; 2005(4)BomCR199; 2005(3)MhLj241
K.J. Rohee, J. 1. Original defendant No. 1 preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Buldana in Regular Civil Appeal No. 31/1984 allowing the appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs and decreeing their suit for possession of the suit land by setting aside dismissal of their Regular Civil Suit No. 240/1982 by 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Buldana.2. The facts which are relevant for the purposes of the present appeal are that Namdeo Ganpat Hiwale was the owner of 2 acres 2 gunthas (83 R) of land in Survey No. 164/1 Gat No. 210 area 6 acres 33 gunthas. Namdeo Hiwale died on 8-6-1979. Plaintiff No. 7 is his widow; plaintiffs No. 1, 2 and defendant No. 2 are his sons and plaintiffs No. 3 to 6 are his married daughters.3. Respondents No. 1 to 7 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) instituted suit for declaration and possession of 1 acre 14 gunthas of land out of 2 acres 2 gunthas land. According to them during the life-time of Namdeo Hiwa...
PravIn Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2714
ORDERN.A. Britto, J.1. Heard. Admit. By consent heard forthwith.2. This revision is directed against the Order dated 18-11-2004 of the learned Special Judge , Margoo, by which the learned Special Judge has ordered the framing of the charge against the applicant/accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.3. The accused is a public servant who, at the relevant time was working as a Garrison Engineer, Project (P), Naval Works (NW), Vasco. The allegations against the accused is that on or about 19-8-2002 the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5000/-from Shri Umesh Salgaonkar, partner of M/s. S. K. Salgaonkar and Bros., Vasco, Goa, as motive or reward for recommending the extension period for completion of the works of construction for the Navy at Nofra, Goa, and, on 20-8-2002 accepted same, pursuant to the said demand.4. At the time of framing of the charge by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No. 5/2003, the accused...
Harish Krishnaji Deshpande Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ43Bom
1. The Petitioner was working as the Assistant General Manager in the respondent-Bank at its Pune Camp Branch. He was placed under suspension on September 18, 2000.2. According to the respondent-Bank, the petitioner was guilty of committing grave financial irregularities. A departmental inquiry was held against him. The Inquiry Officer framed charges against the petitioner on March 31, 2001. The gist of those charges is recapitulated as under: -(1) Indiscriminate and reckless sanction of credit limits.(2) Abuse of official power and position in resorting to back-door and unauthorised release of funds to a sick and borrowal unit.(3) Grossly exceeding delegated lending power in a clandestine manner.(4) Unjustified, unauthorised random grant of excess drawing.(5) Total disregard, apathy and least concern to Central Office/Zonal Office instructions leading to an act of rank insubordination.(6) No record of either pre-sanction or post-sanction inspection.(7) Wilful suppression of facts and ...
Shalikram S/O Trambak Hinge Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Poli ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1491
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Shri Jichkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.2.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Sessions Case No. 6/2000 whereby appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife Mathurabai and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Similarly, appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit murder of PW 2 Dropadabai and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sect...
Ccex Vs. Sinar Mas Pulp and Paper (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT619Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. This is an appeal in pursuance of Board's review order against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner. This appeal involves three major issues. Firstly, the Commissioner has allowed credit on capital goods, which are indirectly used in production of the finished goods. In view of the Apex Court decision in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. - 2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC), the action of the Commissioner cannot be faulted on this score.2. As regards the eligibility to credit of inputs duty of Rs. 87,676/-in respect of invoices, which were not in the name of the respondents, Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate for the respondents concedes that this amount is not admissible and he undertakes to advise his clients to pay this amount forthwith. As such, we set aside the impugned order in so far as it relates to the amount of credit of Rs. 87,676/- and direct the respondents to pay the said amount.3. The third question relates to eligibility of MODVAT C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »