Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-29-2002
Reported in : AIR2003Bom178; 2003(2)BomCR148; 2002(4)MhLj615
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This revision application is directed againstthe order passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 6/95 passed on6-8-1996 below (Exh.114) in Regular Civil Suit No. 56/92whereby the order of status-quo was granted. The learnedappellate Court vacating the order of status-quo grantedinjunction in favour of the appellants before it and,therefore, the unsuccessful respondent has come up inRevision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. When this matter came up for arguments, it wasnoticed that several revisions of such nature are pendingin this Court. All these revisions challenged the orderspassed by the trial Court and the appellate Court eitherwhen they are concurrent or when they are reversing. Thelearned Counsel appearing in the above revisionapplication No. 803/96 desired for some time to argue thematter. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned tilltoday. In the meantime, the office also identified about150 revision applications wherein identical question oflaw arose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-01-2002
Reported in : [2003]113CompCas401(Bom); [2004]54SCL219(Bom)
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is a learned advocate practising in the City Civil Court and in the High Court. He has filed the present two petitions under Section 439 read with Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging failure on the part of the companies to pay his debt as mentioned in the petition which according to him is the amount of his professional fees payable by the companies as per his memo dated March 24, 2001. The petitioner appears to have been practising law for a period of 35 years. According to him, ordinarily he does not accept any High Court brief without advance payment of Rs. 10,000. He has further averred that since he knew Shri Sharma, the manager of the company at his request certain small amounts were accepted by the petitioner in the beginning and work was done by him. According to the petitioner, the bills for the professional work done by him were absolutely reasonable considering the fact of the number of years of practice which he has put...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-04-2002
Reported in : (2002)104BOMLR86
D.S. Zoting, J.1. These are the two criminal appeals preferred by the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1993 on 14.2.1995. These two appellants along with one more accused namely Rakeshsingh @ Minty Tukmansing Bhadoriya, aged about 20 years were tried before the Sessions Court for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 120B and in the alternative under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the appellants along with Rakeshsingh were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one year. In addition to the above imprisonment awarded to the appellant Mangalabai, she is also convicted for offence punishable under Sections 194, 210, 203 of the Indian Penal Code an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-08-2002
Reported in : 2003BomCR(Cri)526; (2003)105BOMLR136
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 20th February, 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1993. By the said judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-i.d. to suffer R.I. for one month.2. This is a case of double murder. The appellant is convicted for the murder of Vijay Borade, a young boy of 13 years and his father Devidas Borade.3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under:-Devidas Borade (deceased) was residing at Appapada, Ambednagar, Malad, Mumbai alongwith his family members i.e., wife Sudha Borade (P.W. 7), daughter Anita Borade (P.W. 6) and his two sons Ajay (P.W. 8) and Vijay (deceased). The appellant was the neighbour of Devidas Borade.On 21.11.92 at about 8.30 p.m., Devidas Borade was sitting on the Otla of his hou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-07-2002
Reported in : (2002)(146)ELT124Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of duty confirmed of Rs. 14,26,266/- was granted and the appeal was taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants supplied lubricating oils to foreign going vessels as ship stores in terms of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which permitted such export without payment of duty on appropriate bonds being filed. Although such exports were made under bond for a number of years vide three show cause notices it was alleged that the facility was not available and therefore demand for duty as mentioned above was made covering the period December, 1998 to December, 2000. The duties were confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner on the ground that in terms of Notification 44/94-C.E., dated 22-9-1994 lubricating oils was shown to be a commodity eligible for export under claim for rebate in terms of Rule 12. He observed that there was no specific notification under Rule 13 for export of ship stores under bond. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-08-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Bom258; 2002(3)BomCR29; (2002)2BOMLR564; 2002(2)MhLj590
1. This Court while adjourning the matter on 12thDecember, 2001, had adjourned it with notice to theparties that the matter on the adjourned date would beheard both on admission and final hearing. In the lightof that, Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. Petitioners, M/s. Down Mangor ValleyResidents Welfare Association, are registered under theSocieties Registration Act. One of its aims andobjectives is to provide for a childrens park/garden inthe open space identified as Plot C of property known asBabquiadi surveyed under Survey No.59, P.T. SheetNo.150, Mangor Hill, Vasco da Gama. The petitioner no.2is the Joint Secretary of petitioner no.1. The Presidentand the Joint Secretary have been duly authorised by aResolution of petitioner no.1 to file the presentpetition. A few facts which are relevant for the purposeof disposal of this petition may now be set out. LateBruno Lizardo Fernandes was the owner of the propertywhich is the subject-matter of the present petition. Thesaid owner had applied to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-05-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Bom268; 2002(3)ALLMR27; 2002(4)BomCR733; (2002)3BOMLR847
R.M. Lodha, J.1 .Whether there is anything wrong in thedecision dated 24th April, 1990 taken by theInstitute of Company Secretaries of India not toallow the Advocates to practise as CompanySecretaries is the principal question in these twoWrit Petitions and,therefore, these Writ Petitionswere heard together and are disposed of by thiscommon judgment.2. In Writ Petition No.398 of 1990Shri T.U.Khatri is the Petitioner. According toShri Khatri he was granted certificate to practiselaw by the Bar Council of Maharashtra on 30thJune, 1973. Shri Khatri claims to have passedfinal examination conducted by the Institute ofCompany Secretaries of India( for short theInstitute) and was admitted as an AssociateMember of the Institute w.e.f. 30th October,1970. Subsequently Shri Khatri was made FellowMember of the Institute w.e.f. 23rd August, 1976.Upon application made by Shri Khatri to theInstitute and upon fulfilment of requisiteconditions including the No Objection from the BarCouncil of Maharasht...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-27-2002
Reported in : 2003BomCR(Cri)344; (2002)4BOMLR146; 2002CriLJ4198; 2002(4)MhLj201
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This is an appeal moved by the State of Maharashtra against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Osmanabad, in Sessions Case No. 50 of 1983 on 14th August, 1984, by which the present respondent-original accused came to be acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The respondent came to be enrolled as Advocate with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa at Bombay. While he was a student of law, he was married to Kausalyabai from whom he begot a son. He set-up his practice at Bhoom and Osmanabad and claims to have flourished in the same. His wife Kausalya died and he married to Nirmala on 19th May, 1982. After his second marriage he shifted to Aurangabad for practising as an Advocate before this Bench in June, 1982. He claims to have shifted to New Delhi for his practice in March, 1983. When he married Nirmala, his son from his first wife Kausalya was about 10 years old. He came back to his native pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-23-2002
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)37; 2002BomCR(Cri)708; 2002(4)MhLj266
D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. The four appellants/original accused Nos. 2 to 5 in three connected Appeals and Suo Motu Application No. 1 of 1998, viz. (1) Rajesh Namdeo Mhatre, (2) Dilip Mahadeo Surve, (3) Ashok Prafulla Naik, and (4) Chandrakant Ganpat Patre, were convicted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 860 of 1994. The appellants were originally charged and tried for the offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 341 read with Section 34, Section 506 read with Section 34 and Section 366 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with three other accused, viz. original accused Nos. 1, 6 and 7, who were acquitted of all the aforesaid offences. The appellants alleged to have committed rape on Suman Bhimrao Banpate during the intervening night of 22nd August, 1993 and 23rd August, 1993 between 12.15 a.m. and 2.30 a.m. on the terrace of the building at Koyana colony situate within the jurisdiction of R.C.F. Police Station.2. The appellants were sentenced to under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-04-2002
Reported in : 2003BomCR(Cri)882
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Dhote, learned Additional PublicProsecutor for the appellant, and Shri Gupta, learnedCounsel for the respondent.2. The State has filed the instant appeal against thejudgment and order dated 18.10.1989 passed by theAdditional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.70/1996 whereby respondent is acquitted of the offencepunishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as follows :The respondent and deceased Ramesh were theresidents of village Banpuri and their agriculturalfields were adjacent to each other. It is alleged thatthere was a quarrel between them for taking water fromcanal. The incident occurred on 6.12.1985. It isalleged that on that day deceased Ramesh was sitting atabout 9.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on the flag post. PW 4Doma and Raghoba came there and also sat on the platformof the flag post. After taking meal, people of thevillage normally used to assemble near the flag post forchitchatting. On the day of in...
Tag this Judgment!