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.
Prakash Rasiklal Dhariwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj916
R.M.S. Khandeparker, J.1. We have heard at length the learned advocates for the parties. 2. Rule. By consent the rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The Petitioner challenges the Warrant issued against his father Rasiklal Dhariwal being without jurisdiction as also the Order passed by the Court below in MCOC Special Case No.1/2005 directing issuance of warrant to be bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4. Few facts which are relevant for the decision in the matter are that the L.A.C. Case under Sections, 3, 7 & 25 of the Arms Act came to be registered against one Jamruddin on 27.9.2004. Consequently, C.R.No.122 of 2004 was registered against the said Jamruddin and three others. Jamruddin was came to be arrested on 10.10.2004 followed by another accused viz. Rajesh. The interrogation of the said accused allegedly revealed involvement of Shri Rasiklal Dhariwal, hereinafter referred to as 'Rasiklal' as well as Petitioner in another Writ Petition No.386 of 2005 namely Shri Jagdish M. Jos...
Dalpat T. Anjaria and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Bom245; 2005(3)ALLMR517; 2005(3)BomCR663; 2005(2)MhLj727
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. The Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioners are purchasers of diverse flats situated in a building known as Vishal Towers at 107, Motishaw Lane, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400 010. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are stated to be Trustees of a Trust by the name and style of J.R. Mehta Family Trust which had carried on business in the name and style of Shreeji Builde Rs. The Trust is a lessee of a plot of land bearing City Survey No. 1/397 (part) admeasuring 1467.39 sq.mt Rs. In 1994, the Trust commenced development of the property under Development Control Regulation 33(7) and agreements were entered into with the erstwhile tenants. It has been stated that Respondent Nos. 8 to 21 are the erstwhile tenants on the property. The Trust agreed to give alternative accommodation to the erstwhile tenants in the building which was to be constructed on the plot of land. A building consisting of a ground and ...
Shri Narshima Annaji Purohit and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR189
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocates for the appellants and respondent. This appeal is filed by the original applicants whose claim petition came to be dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal by judgment dated 25.3.1999 in Application No. 9800011. 2. The Appellants are the parents of deceased Prasad Narshima Purohit who died at the age of 18 years while he was travelling by Ambernath local train from Dombivli to Ulhasnagar and fell down from a running train near Ulhasnagar Station on 7.11.1997 at about 4.30 p.m. and sustained injuries and died as a result of the injuries. According to the appellants, deceased Prasad was holding second calls card ticket which was lost in the accident. 3. When the claim petition, claiming Rs. Four lacks], was filed, it was opposed by the Railway on the ground that firstly deceased Prasad was not the bonafide passenger and, secondly the accident was not as a result of negligence on the part of the railway, but the deceased died due to his own neglig...
Mahadeo P. Rout and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR53
Gokhale H.L., J.1. The petitioners herein claim to be the Chairman and Secretary of one Shetkari Hitvardhak Sanstha. They have filed this petition based on some information received from respondent No. 10 herein concerning the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC') promoting Certain Officers from the State Civil Service to Indian Administrative Service. The petition makes a grievance on the basis of that information that those selections were tainted and a writ of mandamus is sought directing the preliminary enquiry by respondent No. 2 Central Bureau of Investigation ('C.B.I.') with respect to the selection made by DPC of 2003. Prayer (b) of this petition is that in case the enquiry discloses commission of cognizable offence, the necessary investigation be again entrusted to respondent No. 2 and be monitored by this Court.2. In this petition, respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 2 is C.B.I., respondent No. 3 is Union of India, respond...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Moti Enterprises
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj791
1. These Appeals are filed against the orders and judgments of a learned single Judge dismissing the appellants' petition Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the said Act') for setting aside the award of the learned sole Arbitrator. The learned counsel stated that the decision in Appeal (Lodging) No. 993 of 2003 will govern the decision in Appeal (Lodging) No. 994 of 2003. We shall for convenience refer to the facts in the former Appeal.2. The appellants invited tenders for certain construction work. The respondent was the successful tenderer. The appellants therefore, accepted the Appeal (Lodging) No. 993 of 2003 in Arb. Pet. No. 218 of 2003 decided on 22-2-2005. (O.O.C.J., Bombay) respondent's tender by a letter dated 29th November, 1997. The agreement was governed by the terms and conditions contained in the said letter and other documents such as the General Conditions of Contract for Lump Sum Contracts, Special Conditions of Contract, Particu...
N. Mehta and Company Vs. Padgilwar Industries and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR126; IV(2006)BC254; 2005(4)BomCR213
Rohee K.J., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. Admit. Taken up for final hearing with consent of the parties. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive notice.3. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/decree holder seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 10-1-2005 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur below Exh. 172 in Special Darkhast No. 78 of 1999 and to hold that the applications moved by respondent No. 3 judgment debtor are not tenable and to direct the Executing Court to execute the sale deed of the property auctioned in favour of respondent No. 4 auction purchaser and to allow the petitioner to withdraw the decreetal amount out of the auction price deposited by respondent No. 4. 4. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition can be stated thus :The petitioner instituted Special Civil Suit No. 134 of 1993 ...
Arashdeep Singh Vs. the Commandant, Armed Forces Medical College,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR119
Dalveer Bhandari, C.J.1. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Commandant and the Director General of the Armed Forces Medical College dated 29th June, 2004 and 9th June, 2004 respectively, by which the petitioner has been removed from the service of the Armed Forces Medical College, Pune. The petitioner is also aggrieved because the respondent has directed him to pay Rs. 7,50,000/- towards bond agreement for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' to him to start internship training in any other Civil Hospital.2. The petitioner is a student of the Armed Forces Medical College, Pune and has been carrying on his medical education since 1999. The petitioner has to undergo internship for a period of one year before the petitioner can practice as, a doctor. The petitioner has been removed from the service with the present respondents with effect from 9th June, 2004 on medical grounds due to Polysubstance Dependence ICDF 19.2. The petitioner's main grievance is that the resp...
Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Reliance ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR371; (2005)IIILLJ262Bom
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocates for the Appellants and Respondents. This appeal is filed by the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation against the order of Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay dated March 30, 1992 by which the Application (ESI) No. 125 of 1986 and 25 of 1987 filed by the Respondents were allowed and it was declared that the Applicant firm is not liable to pay contribution as claimed by the Appellant/ Corporation in respect of its activities as an Interior Decorator.2. The trial Court had framed three issues. But the crucial issue for the purpose of this appeal is Issue No. 1 which is modified by me as under:'Issue No. 1: Whether the professionals and consultants engaged by the Respondent in its business of interior decorations, furnishers, and designers of industrial and household premises would be the employees within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the E.S.I. Act, 1948?'3. I am aware that this is not a Writ Petition challenging applic...
Vitthal S/O Gyanba Gaikwad Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Accused Prese ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1454
P.B. Gaikwad, J.1. Accused Vitthal s/o Gyanba Gaikwad being dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 12.01.2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Sessions Case No. 67/1998 directing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default R.1. for six months filed present appeal. 2. The facts in nutshell leading to the present appeal are as follows : That, marriage of deceased Panchashila daughter of PW 1 Vitthal Sitaram Shinde and mother of PW2 Kavita, PW 3 Yogendra and PW 4 Savita was performed with the present appellant in the year 1979. PW 1 Vitthal Sitaram Shinde is the resident of Purna District Parbhani. After the marriage of Panchashila with the accused, she started residing with her father-in-law and mother-in-law at village Rathi-Dutka. The accused who is serving in the Irrigation Department used to visit Rathi-Dutka. After two years' of marriage, the accus...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Paushak Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT249Tri(Mum.)bai
3. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Paushak Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of phosgene gas falling under sub-heading No.2912.00, which is being cleared partly on payment of duty outside the factory and partly consumed captively without payment of duty under Notification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 for manufacture of final product viz. Diethyl Carbamyl Chloride (DECC) falling under sub-heading No. 2921.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The final product, DECC, is cleared in major quantity at Nil rate of duty under Notification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95. The input phosgene is exempted from payment of excise duty if used within the factory of production or in relation to manufacture of final product viz. DECC provided the final product DECC is not exempted from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or chargeable to Nil rate of duty.4. Show Cause Notice dated 17-3-99 was issued to the appellants, proposing to recover the duty of excise amounting to Rs. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »