Mumbai Court June 1981 Judgments
Quimagrao JaIn Vs. Rasiklal Dave and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR756
S.K. Desai, J.1. This revision is preferred against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 187 of 1980, filed before the Court of Sessions, Greater Bombay. The said application was filed against the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra Shri M.D. Mathkar in Case No. 9-IR/79. A few facts may be stated. The revision petitioner before me is the accused in the said criminal case and against whom one Rasiklal Dave the 1st respondent before me filed a complaint under sections 420 and 403 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused has property called Jain Cottage, at Plot No. 603, T.P.S. III, Bandra. Somewhere in February 1979 after negotiations an agreement was entered into between the complainant Rasiklal Dave as a builder and the accused as a owner. It would appear that when inquiries were made for investigating the title of the accused to the property and inter alia 7/12th extract obtaine...
Tag this Judgment!Gunwantro Yeshwantrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom295; (1981)83BOMLR448; 1981MhLJ815
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner who is a Sarpanch of village Panchayat of Bodwad, has challenged in this writ petition the order passed by the Collector, Jalgaon Dt. 31st Dec., 1980 Holding that the Petitioner stands disqualified as a Sarpanch under Section 37 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.2. It appears from record that the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bhusawal submitted a report ot the Collector on 17th Sep., 1980. Bringing to his notice that the monthly meetings of the panchayat for the months Apr., 1979, May 1979, July 1979, Oct., 1979, Dec., 1979, Feb., 1980, Mar., 1980, Apr., 1980, June and July 1980 were not convened by the Petitioner Sarpanch and, therefore he is disqualified under Section 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act from continuing as a Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat. After getting this report from the Block Development Officer, a show cause notice was served on the petitioner by the Collector on 17th Oct., 1980. The Petitioner sub...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. J.T. Wadhwani
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD602(Mum.)
1. The revenue has made this appeal against the order dated 8-5-1980 of the Appellate , Controller B-Range, Bombay, who partly allowed the appeal against the order dated 25-8-1977, of the Fourth Assistant Controller, Bombay.6. The second issue, in this appeal, is regarding the addition of Rs. 32,281 representing the value of Flat No. 85, in Deepak Building, Peddar Road, Bombay 400 026.7. The Assistant Controller made the addition of Rs. 32,281 on the ground that the deceased was the actual owner of Flat No. 85 ; while his wife was his benamidar for the Flat.8. Before us, Shri Viswanathan contends that the assessment records of the deceased show that the deceased had admitted that for the acquisition of the aforesaid flat, it was the deceased who gave the consideration to his wife, but, there is no statement to this effect either of the wife or of the deceased, and the entries in the books of account are merely assertions and if they are proved, then these are admissible in evidence. H...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1981
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR261
ORDER1. The petitioner was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code by the P.S.I., Police Station Parli-Vaijanath, District Beed, on May 27, 1981 on a report by complainant Hiralal Chunilal Sarda, a resident of Parli-Vaijanath, Taluka Ambejogai, District Beed, contending that he had entrusted about 163 tolas of gold ornaments on account of mutual intimate relationship for the purpose of safe custody to the petitioner. These ornaments belonged to the complainant's wife, son-in-law Narsingdas Maniyar from Gangakhed and relation Chandulal Nawandar from Govardhan. They were entrusted to the petitioner for safe custody on March 5, 1981 in the presence of two witnesses being Chandulal Nawandar and Khushalchand Gatagat, It was on May 15, 1981 that the complainant was called by the petitioner-accused and told that all the ornaments kept by him were stolen. Upon hearing this, it is alleged, complainant Hiralal told the petitioner-accused to make a report t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›