Mumbai Court April 2006 Judgments

Uco Bank Vs. Gammon India Ltd.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2006)BC140

1. The important question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether time or period required for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order can be excluded for the purpose of counting the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 20(3) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as RDB Act).2. Today, this appeal had been shown for admission on board. However, a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that there is a delay in filing the appeal and in an absence of delay having been condoned on an application made in that behalf, the appeal is not maintainable.3. The present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 9.3.2005 passed by the DRT-II, Mumbai disallowing the original application filed by the appellants. The appeal was filed on 2.5.2005.Section 20(3) of the 'RDB Act' prescribes a period of 45 days for filing appeal from the date on which a copy o...

Bandu Hasan Tamobli Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Ranjana Desai, J. 1. The appellant (for short, 'the accused') was tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Karad in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2000 for offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the said Act'). 2. It would be advantageous to give a gist of the prosecution case. Complainant Mangal Govind Bhise resides along with her husband, her children and her brother- in- law at Warana Prakalpa Vasahat , Koyana Siding, Ogalewadi, Taluka Karad. Her husband PW-7 Govind Daji Bhise was working as a labourer in Warana Irrigation Prakalp. The accused was also serving in the same department and he was residing in the same locality. His chawl was at the back of the complainant ' s room. The accused used to visit the complainant ' s house and her children used to call the accused Bhaimama. On 7/8/1994 at abo...

Shri Mukesh Laxman Das Talreja Vs. the Inspector of Police

Court: Mumbai

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned PAP for the State. 2. By this Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the charge-sheet which has been filed by the State in respect of the offence which is punishable under the provisions of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Preservation of Trees Act, 1975. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is seeking an order from this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the criminal proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioner under the said Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said proceedings on merits by submitting, firstly, that even if the averments which are made in the complaint are taken at its face value, no case is made out against the present petitioner and, secondly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that the offence under Section 21 read with Sec...

Vijay Enterprises Vs. Gopinath Mahade Koli and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR124; 2006(4)BomCR701

S.U. Kamdar, J. 1. In a suit being Suit No. 1780 of 1993 a chamber summons was taken out by one Madhu Lakhma Kakade inter alia seeking relief that the applint should be added as a party defendant to the suit and the plaintiffs should be directed to serve upon him the suit proceedings. In view of the fact that one of the documents which were used in support of the application being prima facie found to be fabricated document, I directed by my order dated 28.2.2005 the Crime Investigation Department (CID) to conduct an investigation about the genuineness of the documents annexed as Annexure 'I' to the said order. It was further directed that the CID should find out whether any such school exists and whether it had a primary section at the relevant time in the year 1967 and whether the applicant Madhu Lakhma Kakade was a student of such a school. I further directed that the matter be placed on board on 15.3.2005. Thereafter I directed the Chamber Summons to be placed for hearing on 21.3.2...

Shrirang Ramratan Chandak and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR685; 2007(207)ELT217(Bom); 2006(4)MhLj571

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The heirs of late Ramratan Srivallabh Chandak, by means of this writ petition, seek to challenge the order dated 28th February, 1986 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'). 2. On the basis of the information received by the concerned authority under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, the search was conducted in the residential premises of Ramratan Srivallabh Chandak (since deceased) on 25th March, 1974. The search continued for three days. During the course of search, the primary gold was found in the wooden almirah kept in the room on the second floor. In the first compartment of the almirah 18 gold foils weighing 49.300 gms were found. At the base of this almirah, there was a drawer. That did not contain any incriminating material. The drawer was completely pulled out and it was found that there was a cavity at the base in between the base of the drawer and the base of the almirah. In the cavity 'Kalyan magazines' w...

Mahendra Pratap (Col.) S/O Bhawani Shankar Choudhary Vs. Sanjay S/O Go ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)MhLj429

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is application Under Section 15 read with Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (referred to as 1971 Act hereafter) read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner/original plaintiff begs to point out that use of words 'extraneous considerations' by respondents/original defendants in application for review filed before lower Court scandalizes that Court and constitutes criminal Contempt of defined in Section 2(c) of 1971 Act.2. Present petitioner Col. Mahendra Pratap Choudhary has filed Special Civil Suit No. 400/2002 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur for cancellation of sale deed dated 14-3-2000 and for restoration of his possession and for permanent perpetual injunction. For the purposes of present controversy the details of said dispute are not relevant. The sum and substance of grievance of petitioner is that, respondents who obtained sale deed from him had agreed to provide a penthouse with open terrace and ...

Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Seva Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR723; 2007(3)BomCR859; 2006(4)MhLj521

D. Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service. By consent of Counsel and at the request of Counsel taken up for hearing.2. The petitioner claims to have instituted these proceedings in the public interest to espouse the claim of persons belonging to the Thakur community which is listed as a Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential Notification issued under Article 342 of the Constitution. The relief that has been sought is the issuance of a writ of mandamus to the State Government to appoint Judicial Officers as Chairpersons of Scrutiny Committees functioning under the control of the Tribal Development Department. These Committees are entrusted with the function of verifying the authenticity of the claims of persons who seek recognition as members of a Scheduled Tribe. There is a challenge in these proceedings to a Government Resolution dated 7th December, 2005. A declaration has been sought that the S...

Ramkrishna Sadashiv Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR520; 2006(44)MhLj411

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner was a part-time professor of Law College (respondent No. 5), has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seeks to challenge the non-grant of the benefits of provident fund for the period he was working as part-time Professor with respondent No. 4. He alternatively prayed for grant of benefit of pension and gratuity on the same foundation.2. The petitioner had joined as part-time professor of Business Law on 4th July, 1983 and was continued till his retirement on 6th June, 2000. At the time of the retirement, the petitioner was drawing basic salary of Rs. 5,138/- and clearness allowance of Rs. 1,938/- aggregating to Rs. 7,076/-. Based on an order in Writ Petition No. 2588 of 1989, the petitioner therein who was working as a professor with respondent No. 4-College had claimed the benefit of provident fund for the period of his working as part-time professor. By the order dated 16th January, 2002, the said case was considered favourably by ...

Narendra V. Kanekar Vs. the Bardez-taluka Co-op. Housing Mortgage Soci ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR673; II(2007)BC555; 2006(6)BomCR874; 2006CriLJ3111

ORDERN.A. Britto, J.1. The petitioner herein, is an accused who has been convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('Act', for short), by the learned J. M. F. C., Mapusa, by Order dated 29.07.05 and which Order in appeal has been confirmed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Mapusa. The controversy in this revision is in relation to the explanation below Section 138 of the Act, which reads as follows:Explanation : purposes of this section, 'debt or other liability' means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of this revision.3. The complainant (respondent herein, is a Society having its business of advancing loans for the purposes of construction to is members, and, the accused is a member of the said Society. The accused and his wife has availed a loan of Rs. 3, 55, 000/- on 05-11-1996 with a condition to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% or higher rate of interest pl...

Shivaji Waman Eodase and ors. Vs. Chandrapati Ishwarsingh Dahiya and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007ACJ2649

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. The submission of learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard yesterday. All the first appeals in this group arise out of the same accident. The impugned judgment in all these appeals except in First Appeal No. 432 of 1997 is a common judgment delivered in separate claim petitions. Therefore, the appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.2. All the appeals except one arise out of claim petitions filed under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1939'). One appeal arises out of a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. All the claim petitions arise out of an unfortunate accident which took place on 20.7.1984. Accident took place at Kesurdi Phata, Pargaon, Taluka Khandala, District Satara. A bus owned by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation was proceeding from Panaji to Pune. The other vehicle involved in the accident was a dumper-truck (hereinafter referred t...