Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom177; (1952)54BOMLR955; ILR1953Bom55
FACTS The prosecution case was that one Laldas and six other persons (accused Nos. 1 to 7) had entered into a conspiracy to commit theft by illicitly cutting and removing Government trees in the Walheri Bari reserved forest between the villages of Walheri and Sojarbara. Laldas, Parashabhai and Jangubhai (accused Nos. 1-3) were partners of the firm Laldas Onkardas Company and had taken on contract the trees in provate survey Nos. 1 to 6 at Sojarbara. In December 1946 these three partners entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the theft of adjoining Government trees of the Walheri forest. In pursuance of this conspiracy, they did commit the theft as intended and thereby committed and offence under S. 120-B read with S. 379, Penal Code. This was the first charge framed at the trial against accused Nos. 1 to 3. The four other accused were Forest Officers and according to the prosecution case, they also joined this conspiracy. Andrade (accused No. 7) who was an Assistant Divisional Of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1916Bom265; (1916)ILR40Bom529
Macleod, J.1. The defendant Steamer Company entered into an agreement, on the 1st April 1915, with the firm of Chhagandas & Co. whereby the latter chartered the steamer Hejaz for a voyage, Bombay to Naples, Genoa and or Marseilles, any two discharging ports at charterer's option. On the 14th April, the Jeddah was substituted for the Hejaz. The plaintiffs procured from Chhagandas & Co. freight for 2,500 bales of cotton on the said steamer and were given the shipping orders which they presented to the defendants. The 2,500 bales were put on board the Jeddah and twenty-five bills of lading relating to them were issued by the defendants, who were paid Rs. 32,610-6-2 for freight. Owing, however, to the import of cotton into Genoa being prohibited by orders of Government, the Jeddah did not leave the harbour and the voyage had to be abandoned. Negotiations were entered into with the various shippers of cotton, which are set out in the correspondence-annexed to the pleadings, but eventually t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 33Ind.Cas.536
Macleod, J.1. The defendant Steamer Company entered into an agreement, on the 1st April 1915, with the firm of Chhagandas and Company whereby the latter chartered the steamer 'Hejaz' for a voyage, Bombay to Naples, Genoa and or Marseilles, any two discharging ports at charterer's option. On the 14th April, the 'Jeddah' was substituted for the 'Hejaz.' The plaintiffs procured from Chhagandas and Company freight for 2,500 bales of cotton on the said steamer and were given the shipping orders which they presented to the defendants. The 2,500 bales were put on board the 'Jeddah' and twenty-five bills of lading relating to them were issued by the defendants, who were paid Rs. 32,610-6-2 for freight. Owing, however, to the import of cotton into Genoa being prohibited by orders of Government, the 'Jeddah' did not leave the harbour and the voyage had to be abandoned. Negotiations were entered info with the various shippers of cotton, which are set out in the correspondence annexed to the plead...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1993(2)BomCR486
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. The petitioner is working as Cost-cum-Financial Controller with the respondent No. 1 which is a Housing Board Establishment under the Goa, Daman and Diu Housing Board Act, 1968 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity called 'the Act'). The said post of Financial Controller is not one of the posts contemplated under the Act but one created later. Annexure-II to the Goa, Daman and Diu Housing Board Cadre, Recruitment of Staff, Functions, Powers and Sphere of duties of Officers and other Employees (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 1983 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity called 'the Regulations of 1993), provides for the hierarchy of the officers of the first respondent-Board. The Board is headed by the Chairman. The next in rank is the Secretary who has been impleaded in this petition as respondent No. 2. Next after the Secretary are the heads of three branches, the Administration Branch, Engineering Branch and the Accounts Branch. The Administration Branch is headed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1973)IILLJ558Bom; 1974MhLJ83
Kantawala, C.J.1. Damodar Shantaram, Nadkarni, the petitioner, has filed this appeal against the judgment and order of Vimadalal, J., dated July 3, 1969, whereby he dismissed the petition that was filed by the petitioner. At the material time the petitioner was employed as a tutor in Chemical Pathology in the Department of Pathology and Bacteriology of the Topiwala National Medical College and he worked in that capacity until he was dismissed from service in October, 1964. In the month of July, 1963 certain irregularities were suspected in the affairs of the Stores Department of the Pathology Department and investigation was started and, in the course of the investigation, certain statements were recorded including that of the petitioner. After completion of the preliminary enquiry on December 28, 1963, G. W. Shiveshwarkar, Officer on Special Duty, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold a departmental enquiry. On January 4, 1964, the petitioner was suspended. On or after February 4, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging orders revoking their registration as Multi System Operators. These registrations have been granted under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1944 (for short the Rules?). The petitioners are engaged in the business of securing signals from television channels distributed to them through cable operators to the end users. Since the two petitioners carry on identical business, but the facts leading to the revocation of registration of their case are slightly different, we would set out the facts in Writ Petition No. 58 of 2015 firstly. 3. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and operating from the address mentioned in the cause title. It is engaged, inter-alia, in the business of cable distribution service as Mult...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(2)BomCR480; (1993)95BOMLR909
H.W. Dhabe, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the orders of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Akola i.e. the respondent No. 1 dated 1-9-1992 and 1-10-1992 refusing him permission to withdraw his notice of retirement dated 31-7-1992. He has also challenged in this writ petition the validity of Rule 66(5) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short, 'the Pension Rules') applicable to the Government Servants. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Section Writer in the District Court, Akola on 5-7-1970 and was promoted thereafter as Clerk-cum-Steno on 1-8-1976. According to him, he had completed 20 years of service when he gave the notice of voluntary retirement dated 31-7-1992 in accordance with Rule 66(1) of the Pension Rules which provides that at any time after a Government servant has completed 20 years qualifying service, he can by giving a notice of three months in writing to the Appointing Authority, ret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(3)BomCR550; 2004(2)MhLj874
C.K. Thakker, C. J.1. All these petitions have been placed for hearing before a Full Bench on a reference being made by a Division Bench consisting of one of us (B.H. Marllapale, J.) and N.H. Patil, J. In all the three petitions, a common question of law has been raised viz., the extent of power, authority and jurisdiction of the Collector under Sub-section (1) of Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to suspend an order or resolution passed by a Municipal Council.2. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present group of petitions, few relevant facts in the First matter i.e. Writ Petition No. 1928 of 1996, Sanjay Govind Sapkal and Ors. v. The Collector of Dhule and Ors., may be stated.3. The said petition was filed by fourteen petitioners claimed to have been appointed by Municipal Council, Dhule, respondent No. 2 herein. The President of respondent No. 2-Council made several a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : II(1989)ACC486; AIR1988Bom377
1. Jugalkishor Darak, a trader of Rahuri in Ahmadnagar Districttravelled on 20th May 1975 from Bombay V.T. to Rahuri by Bombay-Pune-Manmad Passengar. As the railways do not allow heavy parcels of luggage in the passenger compartments, Darak had to load some bales in the brake van for which he obtained a luggage ticket bearing No. 904141. Jugalkishor arrived at Rahuri, the brake van was opened and while taking delivery of one of the bales, he found that it was in a tampered condition. He asked for an open delivery which having been given cloth weighing 33 Kgs. was found missing when compared with the bijak. Jugalkishor filed Regular Civil Suit No. 601of 1976 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar for price of goods short-delivered but the railway administration disclaimed liability to pay compensation as the plaintiff had failed to comply with provisions of Section 77B of the Indian Railways Act (the Act'). The trial Judge negatived the defence and decreed the suit whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1962Bom53; (1961)63BOMLR774; (1963)IILLJ264Bom
Tambe, J.(1) These four Petitions have been placed before us for hearing on being referred to by Mr. Justice K. K. Desai. These four petitions gives rise to some common questions of law and can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. In the first two petitions, M. P. Nos. 248 and 254 of 1960, constitutionality of the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960, No. 1 of 1960, promulgated by the President has been challenged, while in the other two petitions, M. P. Nos. 255 and 256 of 1960, constitutionality of Rule 4 (A) and rule 4 (B) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, has been challenged. The questions raised are of considerable importance.(2) Facts giving rise to these petitions may be briefly stated. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 123 of the Constitution, the President of India promulgated as Ordinance called 'Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960', hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance. It is in the following...
Tag this Judgment!