Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-13-1983
Reported in : 1985CriLJ1255
Gadgil, J.1. The Food Inspector of Nandurbar Municipal Council has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the accused by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Nandurbar, in Criminal Case No. 1204 of 1975. The said case was with respect to an offence under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. As the appeal deserves to be dismissed on a very short; point, it is not necessary to give all the details of the offence in the case. Suffice it to say that on 17-4-1970, at 9-0 a.m. the complainant Food Inspector Y. M. Koli, took a sample of milk from the accused after following the necessary procedure. The sample was divided into three parts. One of the parts was sent to the Public Analyst, on 23-4-1970 for examination and report, the Public Analyst prepared a report dated 26th June 1970 that the sample contained 17-8% added water so as to make the sample adulterous. The said report was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-20-1983
Reported in : 1983(1)BomCR473
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated January 13, 1982 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Criminal Revision Application No. 181 of 1981.2. Petitioner No. 1 had filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 1979 for maintenance for herself and petitioner No. 2 her minor child, under the provisions of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned trial Magistrate by his order dated May 28, 1981 allowed the said application and directed respondent No. 1 herein to pay to petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 Rs. 50 /- per month respectively as maintenance with effect from the date of filing of the said application. This order was challenged by respondent No. 1 in revision application before the Sessions Court, Nasik. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, hearing the said revision, allowed the same, set aside the learned trial Magistrate's order and reject...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-20-1983
Reported in : (1983)85BOMLR300
Puranik, J.1. This Order shall dispose of both the above civil revision applications, inasmuch as they arise out of the same suit and decree.2. The non-applicant No. 1, Damodhar, had filed a suit bearing No. 281 of 1980 on the file of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, against the applicant and other non-applicants 2 to 4 for declaration and perpetual injunction as regard to the suit plot. This suit was titled as a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, but in the prayer clause no relief of perpetual injunction was asked for. The non-applicant No. 1 plaintiff prayed in the suit as follows:(1) Hold that petitioner is the absolute owner of the portion demarcated as DCA and KFGH etc. to the exclusion of all respondents.(2) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to declare that the sale deed executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 3 is void,(3) That any other relief to which this petitioner is entitled to under the said facts and circumstances.In t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-21-1983
Reported in : (1983)85BOMLR218
Chandurkar, J.1. All these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise a question about the validity of the Maharashtra Luxury-cum-Entertainment and Amusement Tax on Holders of Television Sets Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Writ petition No. 1454 of 1982 is filed by the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, Apart from the Chairman and the Honorary Secretary of the said Panchayat, there are three other petitioners in the said petition. The fourth petitioner is the Consumers Guidance Society of India of which the fifth petitioner is the vice-president. Petitioner No. 6 is a dealer in television sets carrying on business under the name and style of Sonal Agencies, which is a partnership firm. Writ petition No. 1463 of 1962 is filed by two individuals who are owners of television sets. The petitioner in writ petition No. 1508 of 1982 is a member of the Legislative Council of the State of Maharashtra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-21-1983
Reported in : 1985(1)BomCR418; (1983)85BOMLR454
Tulpule, J.1. The petitioner is the landlord of certain premises situate in the town of Karad, Satara District. The properties are known as City Survey Nos. 220/18 and 220/15. These two properties are apparently situate in a compound and are separate from each other. The property bearing City Survey No. 220/15 is the rear or 'to the east of property CTS No. 220/18. The two are separated by an open space in between which is apparently used by the different tenants of the two properties in question. There appear to be tenants in both the houses Nos. 220/18 and 220/15. It would appear from the map which is produced in the case exh. 56 that the occupants and tenants occupying the rear building to CTS No. 220/18 have a passage of way or exit and entry to the Western road by strip of land lying between the shop let to the defendant and plaintiffs' other portion of the property.2. The defendant runs a business of mineral oils and is a supplier and stockist thereof. He has a shop in property C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-25-1983
Reported in : (1983)85BOMLR297
Mohta, J.1. Samuel son of Charles Peters the original respondent) was working as a train examiner with the Central Railways. He was charge-sheeted for certain misconducts on October 25, 1952 and pending enquiry was suspended on December 13, 1952. By order dated August 22, 1953 he was removed from service with effect from August 26, 1953, He filed a civil suit for declaration that his removal from service was wrongful. He also claimed the relief of reinstatement and back wages. The civil suit which was filed on April 9, 1958 was decreed on June 29, 1960, His removal was held to be illegal. It was held that he was deemed to be in service. Claim for arrears of wages from August 26, 1953 to April 9, 1958 at Rs. 106 per month was computed at Rs. 5834 and decree for the said amount was passed. During the pendency of the suit, the order of removal from service was set aside, he was asked to resume duties by order dated May 17, 1958 and a fresh departmental enquiry was again started. The origi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-02-1983
Reported in : 1989(24)LC255(Bombay)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The order that I now pass is a corollary to the order passed on 21st January 1983 in Writ Petition No. 531 of 1982.2. In April 1981 the petitioner imported 150 cartons of glazing grease proof paper. On 26th October, 1981 the goods were confiscated by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, for the reason that they were not imported in accordance with the Import Control Regulations. On 5th January, 1982 customs duty was assessed in respect of the said goods in the sum of Rs. 2,71,621/- and the same was paid by the petitioner. On 10th February, 1982 the goods were sold by the Port Trust authorities for non-payment of damages. The sale was pursuant to permission given in that behalf by the customs authorities. On 20th February, 1982 the goods were seized by the customs authorities.3. On 1st March, 1982 the 7th respondent herein, who was the transferee of the goods, filed a Writ Petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No. 531 of 1982, challenging the seizure. On 16th Marc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-03-1983
Reported in : (1983)85BOMLR393
Mohta, J.1. Does right of representation by a co-worker in a departmental enquiry emanate from the principles of natural justice in the facts and circumstances of these cases is a narrow yet an important common point which falls for consideration in these two matters.2. The facts and circumstances are these: The respondent - Bhaiyya Kothe (W.P. No. 2294 of 1982) and respondent - Ashok Vighre (W.P. No. 2296 of 1982) were in the employment of the petitioner Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti and had put in nearly four years of service when some serious charges of gross misconduct, insubordination, misbehaviour, unlawful trade union activities etc. were levelled against them. The charge-sheets which are followed by the statements of allegations in details alleged that the respondents:(i) remained absent merely after applying for leave at the eleventh hour and without getting prior sanction and behaved in a disorderly and indisciplined manner and shouted slogans.(ii) did not take cognizance of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-04-1983
Reported in : 1989(20)LC231(Bombay)
Bharucha, J.1. This notice of motion seeks an unusual relief. Having regard to the more unusual stand taken by the respondents, I propose to grant it.2. On 3rd October 1981 my brother Pendse delivered a judgment in the writ petition. He made the rule absolute and declared that the petitioners' products were liable to excise duty under tariff item 26A(2) or 27(b), as the case may be, and not under item 68 or item 22(1). He observed that, since the petitioners had paid duty from time to time under protest, they would be entitled to file an application for refund. He ordered that, in case the petitioners filed such application, 'the department should dispose it of within a period of six months from the date of filing.'3. The petitioners filed the application for refund on 14th May 1982. By an order passed on 18th November 1982 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise sanctioned an amount of Rs. 86,81,281.89 P. as refund. He directed that the said amount should be released to the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-07-1983
Reported in : 1983(1)BomCR362
D.N. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner herein Punamchand Meghaji Shikhare has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari with a direction to quash the order of removal of the petitioner from service passed by respondent No. 1, the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad, dated 31-1-1975 as also the order passed by the under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, dated 18-12-1981.2. The petitioner was employed as an Unarmed Head Constable and was stationed at the Police Station, Paradh. On 31-1-1972 one Shivsing Rajput lodged a complaint with the Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad, to the effect that Police Head Constable Shinde had demanded from him through Police Constable Dongre of Paradh Police Station illegal gratification of Rs. 15/- for himself and an amount of Rs. 50/- for Dongre as a reward for dropping the proceedings in a police cased involving the complainant Shivsing Rajput, who was found...
Tag this Judgment!