Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC122; 1988(2)SCALE1276; (1989)1SCC52; [1988]Supp3SCR60
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated 16th December 1983 declining to interfere with the judgment and order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay dated 31st October, 1983. By the impugned judgment the Appellate Court upheld the judgment and order passed by the Judge, First Co-operative Court, Bombay dated 28th August, 1981 directing the appellants to vacate and hand over possession of Flat No. 16 on First Floor of Block No. 8 in the housing colony known as Shyam, Niwas, situate at Warden Road, now called Bhulabhai Desai Road, Bombay and to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 450 per month and a further amount of Rs. 42.50 towards maintenance, car parking and water charges w.e.f. 1st August, 1981.2. The facts of the case are as follows. By an agreement in writing dated 1st January 1964, the disputant the late Smt. Devibai H.Advani, who was a tenant co-partner member, permitted the appellants' ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1975]35STC432(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The question which has been referred to us in this reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, is, 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on true and proper interpretation of rules 40 and 45 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Ahmedabad branch of the respondent could not claim set-off under rule 40 in respect of the stock held at Ahmedabad as on 1st January, 1960, and sold there in in its own assessment proceedings but that the head office at Bombay alone was entitled in law to claim set-off in respect of taxes paid on its purchases of goods held in stock by its branch office at Ahmedabad ?' 2. In order to appreciate the facts which have given rise to this reference it is necessary first to know certain relevant provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, framed thereunder. The said Act came into force on 1st January, 1960, which date is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1985Bom160
Mohta, J.1. Since in this batch of 15 petitions, common questions are involved, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioners are cotton-seed dealers and/or crushers who purchase cotton-seed for their business. Various Market Committees constituted under S.11 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1963 (' the APM Act' for short) issued notices to the petitioners demanding on the transactions of purchase of cotton-seed, market-fee and supervision charges respectively in terms of S. 31 and Chap IV-A of the APM Act read with R. 32 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules 1967 ('the APM Rules' for short). The validity of these demands is questioned in these petitions.3. The necessary factual as well as legal back ground may be noticed first. In the State of Maharashtra exists the Maharashtra raw Cotton (Procurement, Process and Marketing) Act, 1971 (' the RC Act' for short). It provides for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1985(2)BomCR633
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the orders passed by the Special Judge, Kolhapur on five applications filed by the petitioners for various reliefs in Special Case No. 1 of 1983.2. Petitioner Nos 1 to 13 (Original Accused Nos. 1 and 4 to 15 in Special Case No. 1 of 1983) are public servants being members of the Police force. At the material time petitioner No. 1 was working as a Sub-divisional Police Officer at the city sub-divisional of Kolhapur city. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 8 who are Police constables were attached to the Laxmipuri Police Station at Kolhapur. Petitioner Nos. 9, 10 and 13 were attached to Police headquarters and petitioner Nos. 11 and 12 were working as wireless operators at the Police Control Room at Kolhapur and petitioner Nos. 14 and 15 (original accused Nos. 15 and 17) are panch witnesses who attested the panchanama; alleged to be ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR565; (1991)93BOMLR988
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. All these petitions raise common questions of fact and law are, therefore, decided and disposed by this common judgment.2. Criminal Writ Petition No. 332 of 1990 filed by Balasaheb Kushaba Kadam challenges order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmednagar, in Externment Proceeding No. 22/88 directing petitioner to execute a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for Rs. 50,000/- each for ensuring good behaviour for a period of two years and dismissal of appeal by the State Government against the said order. He was served with a notice under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, pointing out that the activities of the petitioner in Deolali Pravara habitation and around it have caused alarm, danger and harm and 4 criminal cases have been filed against him and the petitioner is trying to create communal tension by instigating Hindus and Muslims and therefore, he should show cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of Ahmednagar, N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1980Delhi102
V.D. Misra, J.(1) Common, questions of law have been raised in Criminal Writ Nos. 48, 52, 58, 59 of 1978, and 3 of 1979. This judgment will govern all the petitions. (2) The petitioner in Criminal Writ No. 48 has been served with a notice under section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (Act No. 34 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North District, informing the petitioner of the allegations against him and calling upon him to show cause why he should not be externed under section 47 of the Act from the limits of the Union territory of Delhi for a period of two years. The petitioner in Criminal Writ No. 52 of 1978 has been served with a notice under section 50 by the Deputy ..Commissioner of Police, Crime Prevention, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be externed under section, 48 of the Act from the limits of the Union territory of Delhi for a period of two years. Petitioners in other petitions have been externe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner seeks to invoke writ jurisdiction of this court questioning validity of the order dated 31-08-2012 in appeal no EXT2012 /128 passed by the Principal Secretary, Home Ministry of the State of Maharashtra who dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner against the externment order dated 05-06-2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone -2 Mumbai, whereby externing the Petitioner from the Districts of Brihan Mumbai (Greater Mumbai) Mumbai Police Commissioner Zone, Navi Mumbai, Thane and Raigad for period of one year with effect from the date the petitioner is externed. 3. It is case of the Petitioner that on 15-03-2012 the Petitioner was called by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gaondevi and was handed over an order dated 15-03-2012 and was directed to furnish surety. The Petitioner had furnished surety of Shri Anant Advilekar on the same day. The Petitioner was allowed to go. On 03...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1987(3)BomCR656; (1987)89BOMLR533; 1987MhLJ1046
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. The petitioner was externed by the order dated 8th November, 1986, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phaltan Division, Phaltan, under section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1961. The petitioner has challenged the said order on several grounds.2. Before going into the facts of the case, it may be worthwhile to refer to the provisions of the Act and certain authorities which lay down certain principles relevant to the passing of valid and lawful orders as also indicating what caution and circumspection has to be exercised while considering the validity of the orders of externment passed under section 56 or 57 of the Bombay Police Act.3. In State of Bombay v. Vishnu Ramchandra. : 1961CriLJ450 , the Supreme Court has observed :---'An externment order, however, to satisfy the requirements of section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, must be made bona fide, taking into account a conviction which is sufficiently proximate in time. Since no absolute rule can be laid down, eac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(2)ALT340
E. Dharma Rao, J.1. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. W.P.Nos. 511 and 539 of 2001 were filed by the Mini Taxi Owners' and Drivers Association, while W.P.No. 676 of 2001 was filed by Sri K. Yadagiri, questioning the impugned notification bearing No. Tr.T4/211/2001 dated 15-1-2001 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad under the City Police Act, 1348 Fasli being arbitrary, irrational and outside the scope and ambit of Section 21 of the Hyderabad City Police Act; by which the Commissioner of Police has notified for information of the public in general and the 7 seater auto operators in particular, that the following restrictions are imposed on the movement of the 7 seater auto rickshaws for the maintenance of safe and free flow of traffic, prevention of danger, obstruction and inconvenience to the public, that the movement of 7 seater auto rickshaws is prohibited in the twin cities of Hyde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001CriLJ2421
E. Dharama Rao, J.1. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. W.P. Nos. 511 and 539 of 2001 were filed by the Mini Taxi Owners' & Drivers Association, while W.P. No. 676 of 2001 was filed by Sri. K. Yadagiri, questioning the impugned notification bearing No. Tr. T4/211/2001 dated 15-1-2001 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad under the City Police Act, 1348 Fasli being arbitrary, irrational and outside the scope and ambit of Section 21 of the Hyderabad City Police Act, by which the Commissioner of Police has notified for information of the public in general and the 7 seater auto operators in particular, that the following restrictions are imposed on the movement of the 7 seater auto rickshaws for the maintenance of safe and free flow of traffic, prevention of danger, obstruction and inconvenience to the public, that the movement of 7 seater auto rickshaws is prohibited in the twin cities of H...
Tag this Judgment!