Mumbai Court March 1982 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Govardhandhari Devasthan Vs. Collector of Ahmednagar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom332; 1982MhLJ390
Masodkar, J.1. This appeal and the suo motu notice issued to the charity commissioner have reference to the compensation proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regards to the lands belonging to the public trust , being Shri. Govardhandhari Devasthan, Kopargaon , bearing survey no. 238 (13 acres) and survey No. 31 (6 acres and 36 gunthas ) . Section 4 notification was issued on January 9, 1969 . The Special Land Acquisition Officer , Good Project , Ahmednagar , made an award under section 11 of the L.A. Act, under which compensation against survey No. 238, being Rs. 72,152/-, was directed to be credited into the Government Treasury with a rider that the proposal for payment of cash allowance be submitted to the commissioner , Poona Division , Poona through the Collector , Ahmednagar , by the Tahsildar Kopargaon. Thus, he virtually seized the amount in favour of the Government and put the same in the custody of the Tahsildar for the purpose of permitting ...
Abdul Ajij Puddan Ansari Vs. Jubedabai W/O Abdul Ajij and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR504
M.L. Pandse, J.1. This is an application filed by the husband to challenge the legality of the order dated July 10, 1981 passed by the II Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule, and the order dated December 9, 1981 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhule in a proceeding under section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).2. The facts are not in dispute and are required to be stated briefly to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is the wife of the petitioner, while respondents 2 and 3 are his minor children. On June 26, 1978 respondents 1 to 3 filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule for maintenance as provided by section 125 of the Code. On January 27, 1981, the application was granted and respondent No. 1 was awarded the maintenance of Rs. 50/- per month, while respondents 2 and 3 were each awarded Rs. 30/- per month. The Magistrate also directed that the amount of maintenance shall be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›