Mumbai Court March 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.
Balkrishna Dhondu Raul Vs. Manik Motiram Jagtap and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj226
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. This application takes exception to the order passed by the Sessions Court, Raigad at Alibag, dated 8th February 2005, as well as the order passed by the J.M.F.C., Mahad at Mahad, dated 9th February 2005. The background in which the aforesaid orders came to be passed is as follows.2. Respondent No. 1 has been named as accused in an offence registered with Mahad Police Station punishable under sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 504, 437, 452, 506 of the Indian Penal Code; and section 3 read with section 25 of the Arms Act. Respondent No. 1 had, in the first place, approached the Sessions Court by way of anticipatory bail application, which was, however, rejected. Another unsuccessful attempt of anticipatory bail was made before this Court by Respondent No. 1. This Court by order dated 3rd February 2005 disposed of the anticipatory bail application preferred by the Respondent No. 1 granting limited protection to Respondent No. 1 to surrender...
Mr. Sanjay Narhar Malshe Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2984
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent the rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. A question of law, important and interesting which is sought to be raised in this Petition relates to the powers of the Judicial Magistrate in respect of the grant or refusal of the bail to accused persons in cases which are exclusively triable either by the Sessions Courts or Special Courts established under a special statute.3. Initially the Writ Petition was filed challenging the FIR being C.R. No.3014 of 2005 register at the Jail Road Police Station, Solapur. However, considering the fact that charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed by the Investigating Agency, reserving his right to dispute about the insufficiency of the materials to frame the charge against him, the Petitioner has restricted the challenge to the extent of the point which is sought to be raised as noted above. 4. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the services of one Rajendra Patil, who was the employee ...
Union of India (Uoi), Through Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR327; 2005(4)BomCR609; 2005(3)MhLj412
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether Rule 48-B of Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 (for short, 'CCS Pension Rules, 1972') providing for weightage of five years in qualifying service on voluntary retirement which took effect from 10th September, 1983 would also be applicable to the employees who took voluntary retirement before. 10th September, 1983 2. The aforesaid issue arises in the facts and circumstances that we may briefly notice here.(i) T. Mukandan the respondent joined service in the employment of the Central Government on 4.9.1952. He retired voluntarily as Accounts Officer on 20.9.1979. At the time of voluntary retirement, he had rendered the service of 27 years and 20 days. He was granted pensionary benefits taking into account his qualifying service at the time of retirement as per Rule 48-A of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972.(ii) Rule 48-B was inserted in CCS Rules, vide notification No. 32/4/83-Pension Unit dated...
Sunda Associates Vs. Ajit Kisanlal Agarwal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR69; 2005(5)BomCR428; 2005(3)MhLj362
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioner is the original applicant. It is a proprietary concern. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner owns Flat No. 6 situate on the Third Floor, in the premises known as Sunda Heights at 1368, Kasba Peth, Pune (for short, 'the suit premises'). The respondent had taken the suit premises on leave and licence for a period of 11 months with effect from 21-12-1999 at a monthly license fee of Rs. 3,000/-. The said leave and licence agreement was executed on 21-12-1999. The respondent was required to vacate the suit premises on or before 20-11-2000. According to the petitioner, on the expiry of the said period, the respondent failed to vacate the suit premises. The petitioner, therefore, sent a notice dated 29-12-2000 calling upon the respondent to vacate the suit premises. The said notice was duly received by the respondent. However, the respondent did not give any reply to the said notice nor did he vacate the suit premises.2. The petitioner, therefore, fi...
Ramesh S/O Bapurao Uplenchwar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MhLj457
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Doifode, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 and 2.2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the notices dated 4-12-1992 and 17-4-1993 issued by respondent No. 2 - Commissioner, for conducting enquiry into the holding of petitioner as per the Principal/un-amended provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as Ceiling Act).3. The petitioners state that after filing of return under Section 12 of Principal Act on 30-11-1974, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed orders declaring 34.07 acres of land as surplus and against it an appeal was preferred before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which was partly allowed. Against the said order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Writ Petition No. 1902 of 1975 was filed in the High Court and the High Court rema...
Shri David D'souza Vs. the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, thro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR807
N.A. Britto, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. Heard the petitioner who has chosen to argue the petition by himself after dispensing with two Advocates earlier engaged by him.3. The petitioner in this petition prays for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order be issued against the respondent to quash its Order dated 17.11.2004.4. The petitioner by sale deed dated 7.3.2001 purchased a property known as 'Fondvem' surveyed under No. 42/11 situated at Anjuna, Bardez, Goa, admeasuring about 750 sq. mts. As per the petitioner, at the time of purchase of the said property, he was informed by his vendor that there was a structure which was used for the purpose of storing coconuts, etc. and the said structure due to its non-use had collapsed, and, as per the petitioner there existed ruins of the said structure which fact was incorporated in the sale deed.5. Upon a complaint made by the Collectorate. North Goa, that an illegal construction was in progress in violation ...
Sanjay Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR986]
B.R. Gavai, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.The petitioner was appointed on 31.8.2000 as teacher in the Primary School managed by respondent No. 1 Zilla Parishad. The petitioner was appointed on the seat reserved fur scheduled tribe on the basis of claim of the petitioner belonging to Halba caste. The case of the petitioner was referred by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad for verification of the caste claim to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 21st May, 2001 rejected the caste claim of the petitioner. The service; of the petitioner consequently came to be terminated on 5.11.2001.2. Though the petitioner has initially challenged the validity of the order of the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner has restricted his claim during the course of hearing, only for protection of his services on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind Katware 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 1.3. The petitioner has give...
National Organic Chemical India Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT465Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides and on considering that out of an amount of Rs. 73 lakhs approximately an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs already stands deposited, and the issue was finalisation of a BE cleared on provisional assessment basis under Chapter 9801. We would consider there is sufficient compliance of the requirements of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 to call for waiver of the remaining amounts & order the stay of recovery thereof.2. Before parting with the disposal of this application, we would like to record the 'duplicity in the conduct of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs' inasmuch as on 10-3-2005 the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 5/5-306/94-CC intimates the importers - "You are hereby requested to pay the Government dues amount to Rs. 73,00759 plus interest immediately, failing which action shall be initiated under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs (Allotment & property of Defaulters for Recovery of Government dues) Rule 1993." While th...
The Jcit, Spl.Rg. 27 Vs. Mahindra Sona Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Mum.)134
1. All these three appeals have been filed by the Revenue arising out of three separate orders of CIT (A) respectively dated 26/4/99, 24/11/2000 and 29/12/2000. Since the grounds raised are identical, therefore, these appeals are consolidated and hereby decided by this common order. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) erred in directing the A.O to allow depreciation on the cost of asset being purchase price namely Rs. 14,31,37,237/- as per IT Rules." ii) For the assessment year 1996-97 the ground raised are as follows. 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in directing the A.O to grant depreciation (as against the depreciation allowed of Rs. 53,50,277/- after giving effect to the order of the ld. CIT (A) for the A.Y 1995-96 wherein relief was granted to the assessee, without appreciating the fact that the depreciation was claimed on overvalued assets purchased by assessee from M/s. Mah...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. T.R. Krishna Murthy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR193; 2005(3)MhLj180
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The Union of India by the present petition seeks to impugn the order dated 22nd December, 1997 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal. The issue before CAT was whether the judgment of the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of S.S. Sambhus v. Union of India and Ors. (1992)19 ATC 571 should also be made applicable to employees sent on deputation and who are holding a post higher than what was held by them in the parent department, when they are to be considered for promotion.2. The Full Bench of the CAT had taken a view that where a person before regular promotion was holding a higher post, then whilst considering the C.Rs., the grading of such a person in comparison with others in the zone of consideration, the grading of the person holding the higher post should be at one stage higher than what is his grading in the higher post. In other words if it is good then it should be treated as very good. The judgment of the Full Bench was chall...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »