Mumbai Court October 1982 Judgments
Harischandra Narayan Khadape Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR296
G.M. Khandekar, J.1. This appeal by the accused is directed against an order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1980 decided on 13th October, 1980 in respect of offences under section 376 read with section 511 and section 450 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The complainant in this case is a woman named Taramati wife of Atmaram Gurav P.W. 2 who is residing in a hamlet called Guravwadi of village Kondye, Taluka Deorukh, District Ratnagiri. She is residing in a house in Guravwadi along with her husband named Atmaram, three minor children and her father-in-law named Ratna. Atmaram i.e. the husband of the complainant is an agriculturist and is also working as a Kotwal under the accused whose name is Harischandra son of Narayan Khadape. Said Harischandra was working as Talathi at the same village Kondye at the time of incident.3. According to the story of the prosecution, on 2nd of April, 1980 Atmaram Gurav had gone to Fung...
Tag this Judgment!Mushirkha Bashirkha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR282
G.M. Khandekar, J.1. This appeal by the accused is directed against an order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 37 of 1980 in respect of offence punishable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The victim of offence of alleged murder in this case is one Tukaram Hari Mahajan who was resident of village Waghod, a place about five kilometres away from Raver. The accused in this case is one Mushirkha who is resident of Raver town. It appears that Tukaram was to pay some amount No. 35/- to the accused and a demand about that amount was made by the accused to the deceased. On the date of incident which was 8th March, 1980 the accused Mushirkha met the deceased Tukaram near the weekly Market at Raver at about 2.30 p.m. or so and the quarrel between them took place just in front of a hotel which is styled as Saraswati Hotel and owned by Khandu Mahajan P.W. 3. The accused was demanding amount of Rs. 35/- from the deceased but the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Shashikant Bajirao Pagare Vs. State of Maharshtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR931
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. The petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Nasik in Sessions Case No. 76 of 1981 for offences punishable under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He has also been convicted for the offence punishable under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, though no separate sentence was awarded for the same. Technically, this order of conviction under section 209 of the Indian Penal Code is incorrect because the offence under section 366 is a larger one embracing the offence under section 209. Along with the accused another person named Sulbha was also put up for trial for offences punishable under the same sections, but read with section 34. She has, however, been acquitted. The order of the learned Sessions Judge convicting the accused and acquitting the other accused, Sulbha is of 23rd of October, 1981.2. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction, the accused has preferred Criminal Revision Appli...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Anoopchand Dhoke Vs. Shivprasad S/O Chaganlal Devidan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1982
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR625
M.P. Kanade, J.1. This civil revision application is filed by the petitioner-tenant against an order of eviction passed by the learned District Judge, Aurangabad dated March 20, 1980.2. The landlord-respondent filed eviction suit against the petitioner in the Court of Rent Controller, Aurangabad under section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act) on the ground of default in payment of rent. The said suit under section 15 of the said Act as filed on January 3, 1975. The petitioner was a monthly tenant in respect of premises bearing Municipal No. 2521 (old) 2881 (New) situated at Dana Bazar, Jalna. It is the respondent's case that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for a period of 1 year and 9 months commencing from March 1, 1973 to November 30, 1974. He had committed a wilful default and, therefore, was liable for eviction under section 15 of the said Act. It appears that the notice of termination was issued...
Tag this Judgment!Caetano F.F. De Figueiredo Vs. State (P.W.D.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom285
1. Caetano F. F. defendants Figueiredo has filed an appeal under S. 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 in the Court of the District Judge, Goa, Daman and Diu. Since at that time the post of District Jude was vacant, no motion of the appellant, the said appeal was transferred by this Court to the file of the Addl. District Judge, who, after haring the parties, held that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter because under Section 9 of the Act the appeal was to be filed before the District Judge or any other Judicial Officer designated by him, and further ordered that the relevant papers be returned to the appellant to be presented to the competent authority. Accordingly, the appellant presented the said appeal afresh before the District Judge, who in his turn held that since the appeal has been transferred from his file to the file of the Addl. District Judge, he could not deal with the matter unless so ordered by the High Court. The appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Madhuvanti Purushottam Thatte Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom443
Tulpule, J.1. The petitioner passed her H.S. C. Examination in March 1982 and secured in the science subjects 250 marks out of 300, which is 83.33%. She applied for admission to the Medical College and for that purpose filled in the form which is prescribed giving therein the information as she thought was necessary and applied to her. The petitioner had secured a First Class at her H. S. C. level examination.2. Admissions to the Medical Colleges run by the Government are regulated and are governed by rules framed by the State Government in that behalf in the year 1971. These rules provide for addition of marks obtained by a student at the qualifying H. S. C. examination and also deduction. These are called the modified marks. Admissions are according to merit and a list of students who applied and their ranking in the order of merit after corrected or modified totals are made is published on the Notice Board. According to the rules. the petitioner was entitled to get an addition of 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Madankumar Dharamchand JaIn and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR416
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. This criminal revision application is filed by original accused Nos. 5 and 6 challenging the appellate order, dated 7th September, 1981 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1979, by which the learned Appellate Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners for the offence under sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. These convictions were recorded by the learned Magistrate on 26th March, 1979. The first petitioner was sentenced to suffer S.I. till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer S.I. for one month for an offence punishable under section 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. The first petitioner was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer S.I. for 15 days for an offence punishable under section 63 of the Copyright Act. The second petitioner, who is original accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Pioneer Tools and Appliances (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1982
Reported in: 1989(23)LC120(Bombay); 1989(42)ELT384(Bom)
1. The first petitioners manufacture, in the name of M/s. Precision Die-Cast Industries, grinders-cum-mixers and pay excise duty in respect thereof. In paragraph 3 of the petition it is alleged that the first petitioners have appointed M/s. Rallis India Limited as their sole distributors. Rallis India is independent company. The sale of the products by the first petitioners to Rallies India are on principal to principal basis and at arms length and there is no extra commercial benefit given to Rallis India. Upon the said products the first petitioners affix name plates bearing the Rallis India brand name. There is no affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents controverting the statements made in paragraph 3 of the petition.2. In respect of the excise duty payable, the first petitioners have filed a price list showing the price paid by Rallis India to them as the assemble value of the said products. On 11th June, 1974 the first petitioners received a notice to show cause why they shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Jaimspex Wires Traders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom169; (1983)85BOMLR93; 1983MhLJ503
Chandurkar, J.1. The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit against Union of India, appellant in this appeal, for recovery of Rs. 68,033.95, which includes interest of Rs. 25, 575.95 on the amount of Rs. 42, 458/- being the price of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff of the defendant and which according to the plaintiff, have been wrongly rejected by the defendant by their rejection order dated 3rd October, 1975.2. Prior to the suit, a notice under S. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was served on the Union of India on 31-7-70. Even prior to that, a letter was served by the plaintiff on the defendant on 1st December 1975, through the General Manager of Western Railway requiring them to pay the suit amount and this letter was accompanied by a copy of the plaint which the plaintiff proposed to file. The Union of India was thus given due information by the plaintiff as far back as 1st December 1975, that the plaintiff would file a suit if the amount due is not received.3. The suit is ...
Tag this Judgment!Biharilal Bhagwandas Makhija Vs. Pribhlal K. Gavalani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1982
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR539
N.K. Parekh, J.1. This is petition for setting aside an award dated 4th May, 1982.2. According to the petitioner, the facts that lead to this petition are that the petitioner was and is occupying some premises belonging to the respondent. That disputes and differences arose between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of these premises and the compensation thereof. That by an agreement dated 17th August, 1976, entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, the respondent agreed to sell these premises to the petitioner for the price of Rs. 16,700/-. It was also agreed that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on the execution of the said agreement and the balance thereof by instalments of Rs. 400/- per month. The first of such instalments was to be paid on or before the 30th of August, 1976, and the subsequent instalments on the 10th of each succeeding month. The agreement further provided that if the petitioner committed three defaults in the payment of the m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »