Mumbai Court June 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.
Ranojirao Shikshan Sanstha Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR663; 2005(4)BomCR475; 2005(4)MhLj207
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. Heard both the learned counsel.3. Affidavit in reply has been filed by the Superintendent, Education Department (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur affirmed on 29th September 2004. Rejoinder also has been filed. On an earlier date, i.e. on 27th August 2004, the parties were put to notice that the petition will be disposed of at the admission stage itself.4. The Petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is running a High School as also a Primary School at Village Mhasave, Taluka Bhudargad, District Kolhapur. The petition is filed to challenge the legality and validity of setting up of 5th to 7th standards by another Primary School of the Zilla Parishad in the same village. The case of the Petitioner institution is that it is running the school from the year 1968. The school is recognised by the Education Department and receives 100% grant. It is situated in a village, of which the popula...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Deputy Collector and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR468; 2005(3)MhLj1153
Lodha R.M., J.1. By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that the Maharashtra Increase in Land Revenue and Special Assessment Act, 1974 and the Maharashtra Increase in Land Revenue and Special Assessment (Amendment) Act, 1986 do not apply to the petitioners non-agricultural land situated in Greater Bombay and in the alternative to declare Section 3 of the Maharashtra Increase in Land Revenue and Special Assessment Act, 1974 as unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. The petitioner also prays that the impugned notices dated 30-9-1986, 4-11-1988, 16-11-1987, 21-7-1988, 16-9-1988, 2-12-1988, 18-3-1989 (Exhibit 'A' to 'G') be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to refund the sum of Rs. 16,26,150/- to the petitioner.2. The controversy arises in the facts and the circumstances, that we may indicate briefly.The petitioner holds the land in the city of Mumbai at various places that in...
Bhimrao Rambhau Abhang, Since Deceased by His Heir and Legal Represent ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR376; 2005(4)BomCR465; [2005(106)FLR1023]; (2005)IIILLJ606Bom; 2005(3)MhLj1134
Marlapalle B.H., J.1. The Award passed by the Labour Court dated 3-2-1994 in Reference (IDA) No. 660 of 1983 has been challenged in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The relevant facts briefly stated are as under.2. The original petitioner was working with the respondent-company, a partnership firm since June, 1961 as a helper and subsequently he was appointed as a watchman. It appears that on or about 8-4-1983 the respondent-employer had lodged police complaint regarding theft of certain articles on the premises. The workmen were called for interrogation by the Inspector of Nagpada Police Station and on the next day the workmen reported to the work at 9 a.m. as usual and were allowed to join the duty. It is alleged that at about 12.15 noon the petitioner was called by Chinubhai Gandhi in his chamber and asked to submit his resignation which the petitioner-workman declined. On 10-4-1983 when he reported for duty, he was not allowed to enter the factory premi...
Vinod Natha Bhagat and ors. Vs. Returning Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Bom402; 2005(3)ALLMR656; 2005(4)BomCR522; 2005(3)MhLj1106
Gokhale H.L., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties in the above three petitions.2. All these three petitions are concerning the election to Nimdari Grampanchayat situated in Taluka Junar, District Pune. Election is to be held on Sunday, 19th June, 2005. These three petitions are filed yesterday and have been moved today for urgent interim orders.3. All the three petitioners in these petitions claim to have filed their nomination forms forward No. 3 which consists of villages Nimdari Gavthan, Baghvasti, Sutarmala and Tonachiwadi. The forms filed by these three petitioners came to be rejected on the ground that in the column provided for writing the name of the ward, they have not written the name of the ward. They have, however, mentioned the ward number wherein they are going to vote.4. Mr. Sugdare, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the name of the ward was not known to the candidates and, therefore, they could not mention it therein. He draws our at...
isak Mahamad Wagale Since Deceased by His Heirs Maryami Isak Wagle and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR659; 2005(5)BomCR686; 2005(3)MhLj1116
P.V. Kakade, J.1. The original appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Ratnagiri on 1-3-1988 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri dated 12-10-1984 dismissing the suit for possession of the suit property.2. The facts involved in this dispute are thus --Original suit was filed by one Jainuddin Mohamad Yusuf Mulla and Ors. It was averred by the plaintiffs that they and defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were successors-in-title of one Mahamad. It was further alleged that the landed property, which was subject matter in the suit, bearing Survey No. 21 Hissa Second Appeal No. 250 of 1988 decided on 10-6-2005. (Bombay) No. 21 to the extent of 2 gunthas of village Jambhari was owned by father of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had common interest in the suit properties, but said defendants were not present when the suit was ...
Yeshwant Motiram Suryawanshi and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Bom327; 2006(3)ALLMR221; 2006(2)BomCR193
Dalveer Bhandari, C. J.1. The basic question which falls for adjudication in these petitions is identical. Therefore, we deem It appropriate to dispose of these petitions by a common judgment.2. It is a matter of common experience in the High Court of Bombay and its branches at Aurangabad and Nagpur that hundreds of petitioners for several years have been approaching the Court with a prayer that the Caste Verification Committee be directed to dispose of their claims expeditiously. Directions have been given by the Court from time to time. The Caste Scrutiny Committee for Scheduled Tribe and other Scrutiny Committees for Scheduled Castes, Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Class category were constituted primarily after the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, : AIR1995SC94 . The Apex Court com-apprehensively carved out the entire procedure forverification of caste certifi...
Mr. Rajan Damodar Sapre Vs. Mrs. Sumidha Rajan Sapre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR483; (2005)107BOMLR167
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant. None present for the respondent. Perused the records.2. This appeal arises from the judgment of the Family Court, Pune, dated 23rd June, 2001 dismissing the petition for divorce which was filed by the appellant or the ground of desertion by the respondent.3. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 2nd June, 1986 at Kolhapur. Sometimes in the year 1993, while they were residing at Kolhapur, the respondent fell ill. The medical treatment to her at Kolhapur did not give fruitful result till November, 1995. At the instance of the parents of the respondent, she was shifted to her parent's place and was admitted in a private hospital at Pune for the treatment. Thereafter, in 1996 the appellant, who was otherwise employed at Kolhapur, was also transferred to Thane. The divorce petition came to be filed by the appellant in June, 1998 and the same was dismissed by the impugned judgment after reco...
Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Oil Mill Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR897; 2005(6)BomCR799; 2005(4)MhLj319
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a co-operative society operating in Katol Tahsil. Registrar of Co-operative Societies has the right to audit the accounts of the petitioner society every year. Petitioners are bound by provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Rules framed thereunder (which hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act and the Rules). Section 90 of the Act provides for constitution of federal authority to supervise the working of the society and the State Government can direct the societies to pay such sum every year as would be fixed by the Registrar, towards the recoupment of expenditure of supervision. Under Section 155 of the Act some of the dues from societies are recoverable as arrears of Land Revenue. The petitioners by this petition are challenging the action of the respondents in levying and collecting Audit Fee and Supervision Fee from petitioner No. 1 -society.2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 2 is levying f...
Global Syntex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT344Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellants are an assessee under the Central Excise Act and are engaged in the processing of MMF. They obtained a registration under the Act as a manufacturer for the factory effective from 12-4-2001 & under letter dated 18-4-2001 intimated the department that installation of machines are in progress and followed it up by letter dated 31-7-2001. On 16-8-2001, they filed an application for availment of Compounded Levy scheme under Rule 15 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 read with Notification No. 32/2001-C.E., dated 28-6-2001 and on 20-8-2001 intimated the start of production with effect from 23-8-2001 and started dyeing process.1.2 On 19-2-2002, they received a letter from . Commissioner, informing them that the request for availment of compounded levy scheme under Rule 15 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 for the year 2001-02 cannot be acceded and in view of the provisions of Notification No.32/2001-C.E., dated 28-6-2001 and application was rejected by the Commission...
Samanta Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT554Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, who has upheld the adjudication order denying the benefit of SSI Notification 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 to organic chemicals manufactured and cleared by the appellants herein during the period July to December, 1995.3. The appellants manufacture bulk drugs (Chapter 29) and clear them on payment of duty @ 10% ad valorem in terms of Notification 8/95, dated 9-2-1995. They claimed SSI exemption under Notification 1/93 for other products, viz. organic chemicals (Chapter 29). The benefit of SSI notification has been denied in view of the bar contained in Paragraph 4 of Notification 1/93 which provides that "a manufacturer shall have an option for not availing a benefit of the exemption contained in the said paragraph and to pay duty of excise at the rate applicable to specified goods but for the exemption contained in Paragraph 1, subject to the condition that such manufacturer shall pay d...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »