Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010CriLJ315
B.H. Marlapalle,J.1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arises from the order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 79 of 1986 on 15/1/1988 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - Sessions Court, Mumbai, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 381 of I.P.C. for causing the murder of two of his colleagues i.e. Omprakash Dubey - Midshipman and Hanumansingh Rathod - Seaman on 24/11/1985 at about 11.30 a.m. while on board INS Ranjit. He has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 and RI for five years for the offence punishable under Section 381 of I.P.C. The appellant was on bail during trial and he continued to be on bail during the pendency of this appeal as well. Thus, during the last more than 24 years he has been on bail and this appeal for some or the other reasons remained pending before this Court for more than 21 yea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(161)ELT141(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This petition challenges the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dated 9-8-1989, wherein the Collector has confirmed the demand raised against the Petitioner's vide show cause notice dated 31st July, 1986 for recovery of excise duty amounting to Rs. 48,40,347/- under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ('Act' for short) and has also levied penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules for short). The aforesaid recovery is on account of 208 cabinets of walk-in-cooler manufactured and said to have been cleared by the Petitioners during the period from July, 1981 to 7-2-1986 without payment of Excise duty.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present petition are that;-The petitioner Company at the relevant time inter alia manufactured walk-in-coolers which are used for preservation of medicines, food and other perishable articles. The said walk-in-coolers were of varying sizes depending upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1979Bom49; 1979MhLJ193
..... use, the property for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, or fell or sell timber, pull down or damage buildings belonging to the lessor or work mines or quarries not open when the lease was granted, or commit any other act which is destructive or permanently injurious thereto.'if the tenant commits any breach of the obligation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2001Bom193; 2001(2)BomCR304; (2001)2BOMLR327; 2001(3)MhLj688
ORDERB. P. Singh, C. J.1. The Petitioner herein, who claims to be a frequent air traveller, travelling by Indian Airlines and Air India, has filed the instant Writ Petition in public interest with a view to bring to the notice of this Court the plight of the air travellers who are exposed to grave risks on account of flying of ageing aircraft which have outlived their design economic life by the Indian Airlines, Respondent No. 4 and the Air India. Respondent No. 5, which are Government Companies and Public Sector Undertakings. He has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, viz., the Union of India, the Director General of Civil Aviation and the Director, Airworthiness. In the office of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, to discharge the statutory duties invested in them under the provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Aircraft Rules. 1937 in respect of safety and airworthiness of the aircr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1987(1)BomCR130
G.F. Couto, J.1. The constitutional validity of section 4 of the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962, as well as of sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, and of the Notification No. 110123/85-UTL issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, on 16th January, 1985 is being assailed in these two writ petitions filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. The grounds of challenge in both the writ petitions are the same, as same are the reliefs sought. Hence this common judgment.2. Section 3 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', provides that there shall be a Legislative Assembly for each Union territory and that the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of a Union territory to be filled by persons chosen by direct election shall be forty in the case of the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh and thirty in the case of any other Union territory. Its sub-s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1981Bom156
..... course that after the suit has been filed, retrospective leave can be given.'9. finally, shri andhyarujina relied upon the observations of the supreme court in the case of everest coal co. pvt. ltd. v. the state of bihar reported in : [1978]1scr571 . krishna iyer, j. was pleased to observe :--'when a court puts a receiver in possession of property, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(4)MhLj760
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The Petitioner has filed this petitioner underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India and is seekingan appropriate writ, order or direction directing therespondent State of Maharashtra and the Conservator ofForest North and Chandrapur Circle to refund an amountof Rs.69,59,078/- with interest @ 20% p.a. from15.8.1987 till realisation of the said amount. ThePetitioner is also seeking an appropriate writ forquashing and setting aside the communications dtd.23.9.1987 and 24.9.1987 which are annexed at AnnexuresI and J respectively to the Petition.2.Respondent no.2 had issued a Tender Notice dtd.8.6.1987 for sale of Bamboo Units in Vadasa (Unit No.7)and Gadchiroli Unit Nos.10,11,12 and 14). Therespondent no.3 had also issued a Tender Sale Notice inrespect of Bhamragarh (Unit No.5) Chandrapur Circle forthe same purpose. The terms and conditions of both thetender notices were identical. The tender was to besubmitted in the prescribed form on or before 15.7.87and sealed tend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(1)ALLMR690
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule, By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 16-12-1992, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department as well as the order dated 11-2-1993 by the Collector for Mumbai Suburban District and seek consequential reliefs consequent to quashing of the said orders.3. The dispute between the parties relate to a plot bearing No. 35A, situate at Santacruz, Mumbai, hereinafter called as 'the said plot'. The undisputed facts in the matter are that the petitioner-society had applied for grant of plots for the construction of residential buildings to accommodate their members and accordingly the Additional Collector of Bombay Suburban District had, by his order dated 1-2-1967, granted six plots bearing Nos. 34A, 34B, 34-C, 35A, 35B and 35C of the layout approved by the Town Planning Department from TPS VI, Santacruz P28 Nos. 18 and 19 of Andheri Taluka, Bom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(6)BomCR652
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This petition challenges the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dated 9-3-1989, wherein the Collector has confirmed the demand raised against the petitioners vide show cause notice dated 31st July, 1986 for recovery of excise duty amounting to Rs. 48,40,347/- under section 11-A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 ('Act' for short) and has also levied penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ('Rules' for short). The aforesaid recovery is on accent of 208 cabinets of walk-in-cooler manufactured and said to have been cleared by the petitioners during the period from July 1981 to 7-2-1986 without payment of excise duty.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present petition are that:---The petitioner company at the relevant time inter alia manufactured walk-in-coolers which are used for preservation of medicines, food and other perishable articles. The said walk-in-coolers were of varying sizes depending upon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1984Bom269; (1984)86BOMLR130; 1984MhLJ885
ORDER1. The principal question which falls for consideration in these two petitions is whether the power conferred under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulations) Act, 1963 ('the Act ' for short) can be exercised to revise the decision of the Board constituted under Section 10 of the Act. Then can therefore be conveniently disposed of by common judgment.2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties we may at the outset note a few provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under, namely the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967) ('the Rules' for short). The Act has been put on the Statute Book, as can be seen form its long title, to regulate marketing of agricultural and certain other produce in market areas and markets to be established therefore in the State. For this purpose the State Government has to notify the area called the market area where marketing of the agricultural produce specified by it wo...
Tag this Judgment!