Mumbai Court April 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.
Premlata Balkrishna Varma Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR184
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Premlata Balkrishna Varma the petitioner before us was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the primary school (standard 1st to VIIth) run by Ruheia Education Society (Respondent No. 7)with effect from 12.6.1981. She was unskilled teacher when she joined service. She completed certificate course in teaching in cardboard work and book binding in the year 1995. She took- admission for postal D.Ed. course of Pune University in the academic year 2000-2001. She appeared in the first year examination of postal D.Ed. course held in the month of October, 2002 and failed in all the six subjects. The next examination for that course was scheduled in the months of April-May, 2003. The petitioner appeared in the first year examination as well as second year examination of postal D.Ed. course held in the months of April-May, 2003. She failed in all the six subjects of the first year examination. As regards the second year examination, she was successful in four subjects and unsuccessf...
Pradeep Yogeshwar Nimje Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR45; 2005(5)BomCR227; 2005(4)MhLj105
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the order dated 2nd December, 2004, passed by respondent No. 2 and it further prays for setting aside of the order dated 24-4-2003 passed by Deputy Registrar i.e. respondent No. 3 in this petition and to declare the voters list published by respondent No. 4 election officer to be null and void. The petition also contains prayer to initiate action against respondent No. 2 under Article 215 of Constitution of India for committing will full disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and for stay of results (of election) declared in pursuance of this order by said respondent No. 2 Divisional Joint Registrar.2. There has been an earlier round of litigation and as such, brief history is essential. Petitioner states that annual general meeting of a co-operative housing society by name Yogeshwar co-operative housing society was held on 13-8-1999 and in election held therein petition...
Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal Vs. Curchorem-cacora Municipal Council an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR283; 2005(4)MhLj730
Lavande A.P., J.1. Heard Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sawaikar, learned Counsel for the respondents. Rule. Mr. Sawaikar waives notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, heard forthwith.2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges three orders all dated 9th June, 2004 issued by respondent No. 2, revoking three no objection certificates, all dated 27th May, 2004, granted to the petitioner for three different purposes.3. Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 2 could not have withdrawn the no objection certificates granted to the petitioner, without giving show cause notice to the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, it is well settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court that once NOC is granted by any authority to a person for any purpose, the same cannot be revoked by that authority without giving show cause notice. Mr. Sawaikar has fairly not disputed this legal position. Mr. Sawaikar, on beh...
Sumitradevi Mahipal Kureel Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ362; 2005(4)ALLMR253; 2005(6)BomCR305; 2005(4)MhLj133
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This revision application under Rule 4(v) of Chapter V of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 challenges the order of Taxing Officer of High Court Bench at Nagpur dated 22-8-2003 in First Appeal Stamp No. 14634/2003 holding that the appellant has to pay court fee on memo of appeal filed by her under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The Taxing Officer has relied upon judgment of this court between Betle Stores v. State of Maharashtra reported at 1997 M.L.J. 823 and has found that the court fee is payable either under Article 3 of Bombay Court Fees Act treating the decision of Railway Claims Tribunal to be an award or under Article 1 of Bombay Court Fees Act, which prescribes ad-valorem court fees depending upon the valuation of the suit. He has recorded that in either case there is no difference in amount of court fee required to be paid on such memo of appeal.2. The appellant is First Appeal Stamp No. 14634/2003 and applicant in this Ci...
Ramesh S/O Ramkrishna Bakde Vs. Divisional Controller, Msrtc and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR361; 2005(4)MhLj152
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner, a dismissed employee of respondent No. 1 challenges the adverse order passed by Industrial Court Nagpur on 22nd September, 1992 whereby the said Court has allowed Revision under Section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (referred to as to as MRTU Act hereinafter) filed by respondent No. 1 and has quashed and set aside the order 31-8-1991 passed by Second Labour Court Nagpur in Complaint U.L.P. No. 865 of 1989. The petitioner was working as driver and he was dismissed from services of respondent No. 1 MSRTC with effect from 3rd July, 1989 for proved misconduct after conducting departmental inquiry against him. He did challenge that dismissal in Complaint U.L.P. No. 865 of 1989 under Section 28 of MRTU Act before Second Labour Court Nagpur and the said Court found that charges levelled against him were not proved in depar...
Dnyaneshwar S/O Kisan Motekar Vs. Vandana W/O Dnyaneshwar Motekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)MhLj438
A.H. Joshi, J.1. The petitioner herein filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. She claims ill-treatment, neglect, threats of killing etc. by the husband and that her efforts to stay with the husband were rendered failure, by him. She also claimed ill-treatment from the husband on account of dowry related demand. It has to be seen from the judgment, (since copy of Written Statement is not provided in the paper book), that the petitioner has denied that the wife had any time peacefully lived with him and blamed her for being a quarrelsome woman and said that she voluntarily withdrew his company because she did not like him. He further claims that all his attempt to bring her back failed. He refused to pay separate maintenance. He further pleaded that the wife undertook the Tailoring Job and earned Rs. 500/- p.m. and that her demand for Rs. 1500 was unjustified.2. The trial Court heard the case and granted the application partly as follows:ORDER'...
Roma Steel Industries Vs. the Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT348Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The prayer in the application is that dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 71,050/- confirmed against the appellants for the period December 1998 to June 1999. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 30,000/- has also been imposed upon the appellants. The said duly has been confirmed by the authorities below, as a consequence of the annual capacity of production fixed by the Commissioner in terms of the Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules made there under.2. Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants fairly concedes that the said duty liability arises in terms of the ACP fixed by the Commissioner which was 2048 MTs. The said order of the fixation of ACP by the Commissioner was not challenged by the appellants and, as such, had attained finality. Further he submits that subsequently their factory was sold to M/s. Shital Ispat Pvt Ltd., who took over with effect from July 1999. On an application by M/s. Shital Ispat Pvt Ltd., the Commissio...
icici Ltd. (Debenture Trustees) Vs. Kothri Industrial Corporation Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)BC34; 2005(5)BomCR213
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present chamber summons is a classic example of how the legitimate claim of a creditor can be defeated by technical and legal wrangles raised by the debtors. The efforts do not end with the passing of the decree but continue even in execution of the decree thereof. 2. In the present case execution of the decree is sought to be obstructed by raising the issue of jurisdiction of this court by relying upon the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 39 of Civil Procedure Code as amended by amending Act of 2002. 3. This chamber summons has been taken out under order 21 rule 89, rule 90 and under section 151 of the CPC. Some of the brief facts which are relevant to determine the issue raised by the judgment debtor are briefly enumerated as under : 4. A suit has been filed by the plaintiffs who are a financial institution known as ICICI Limited in their capacity as Debenture Trustees for the recovery of Rs.6,84,91,000/-. In 1993 the first defendant issued debentures an...
Bastimal Hajarimal Porwal JaIn Vs. Senior Inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC873; 2005(3)MhLj454
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By the present petition the petitioner is seeking the order of transfer of the investigation in C.R. No.286/2004, lodged with the Byculla Police Station to other competent investigating agency on the ground that the investigation has been carried out not only in a haphazard manner, but to hush-up the crime by suppressing the facts and destroying material pieces of evidence as well as with the intention to protect the accused contrary to the provisions of law. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that his daughter by name Dimple was married to one Dhiraj Sukanraj Kothari on 8-6-2003. She was an educated woman, having completed her graduation and since the time of her marriage she was residing with her husband and her in-laws at Sumer Tower, B-12/1202, Love Lane, Byculla (East), Mumbai. Few months prior to August, 2004, the younger brother of the husband of the daughter of the petitioner, namely A...
Laxman Vithoba Bhorsat and ors. Vs. Rajaram Vithoba Bhorsat and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR418; 2005(3)MhLj969
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition the petitioner challenges the order passed by the trial Court allowing the amendment in the written statement. Suit admittedly is a suit for partition. Amendment is sought by the defendant in the written statement. Amendment in the written statement, which results in including other properties than the one in relation to which partition is sought by the plaintiff does not really amount to counter-claim. Therefore, the trial Court and the defendant have committed an error in terming it as a counter-claim. It really is an application for amendment in the written statement, so that other properties which according to the defendant are also joint family properties can be subjected to partition. In a suit filed for a decree for partition the defendant who has share in the joint properties is also in the position of the plaintiff, therefore a defendant can claim in his written statement that apart from the properties which are mentioned in the plaint ther...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »