Mumbai Court June 1984 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.
Trimbak Shankar Tidke Vs. Nivratti Shankar Tidke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom128; 1985(1)BomCR57
1. This appeal has got to be allowed on the narrow ground that the view taken by the learned Assistant Judge, who has clearly accepted all the contentions of the plaintiff but, all the same, has dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance, is a hypertechnical view.2. The facts are very simple. The plaintiff came before the Court contending that he himself and the defendant formed a joint family. Both of them had sold certain property to one Deoram Shivram Tidke. Out of the consideration to be received by both of them from Deoram Shivram Tidke, defendant persuaded the plaintiff to take an amount less than what was receivable by him as per his share in the property. The plaintiff took Rs.7000/- less and correspondingly the defendant took Rs.7000/- more in that transaction. In this manner, therefore, the plaintiff had given Rs.7000/- to the defendant. In consideration of this amount the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the suit property to him for...
Jaiprakash Shankarrao Pisal Vs. Vilas Ganpat Dongre and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR657
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This revision application arises out of an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Satara rejecting the application of the present petitioner to be joined as a party-defendant to the suit filed by present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter the plaintiffs) against the remaining respondents for specific performance of an agreement of sale allegedly executed by respondent No. 3 (hereinafter defendant No. 1) in favour of the plaintiffs.I am of the view that not only that the learned Judge was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for being joined as a party defendant to the suit, but in these days when the courts must find as many ways and means as possible for curtailing the prolixity of litigations, in fact the Court itself should have required the plaintiffs to implead the present petitioner and also his brother Vijaysingh as party-defendant to the suit so as to effectuate complete adjudication of all the questions involved in...
JalauddIn Keky Readymoney (Minor), Through His Guardian and Mother Ban ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR325
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. An irrational view and vulnerable reasons by the lower appellate Court are but only a few landmarks as the major one depicts an unjustified criticism leveled against the lady, which practically tantamount to adding insult to her injury. The last but not the least is that a minor child has been denied maintenance. All these features collectively appear in the judgment recorded by the lower appellate Court and that too in provisional jurisdiction. It is with a sense of constraint that these observations are being recorded, which however, are inescapable.2. One Banubi had filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Nandurbar claiming maintenance for herself and her minor son Jalauddin. First respondent herein was imp leaded as opponent in the said application against whom the relief of maintenance was claimed. In effect her case was that she is legally wedded wife of the said respondent and...
Mohanlal Vs. B.G. Deshmukh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom188
ORDER1. These two revision applications are directed against the orders D/- March 29, 1974 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagpur, rejecting the applicant's applications under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, for making references to the Court under S. 18 of the Act, for determining the amount of compensation payable for the lands.2. The amount of compensation was determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, after issuing requisite notices under the Land Acquisition Act. For the field Khasra No. 159, 15.13 acres of Mouza Nari, total amount of compensation awarded was Rs. 34,845/-, while for field Khasra No. 162, 7.81 acres, total amount of compensation awarded was Rs. 11,678/-. The amounts in respect of both the acquisition were made payable to the non-applicant No. 3 Sunderlal Jagannath Dawali. The present applicant Mohanlal claiming to be the brother of non-applicant No. 3 Sunderlal, contended that the land belonged to him and Sunderlal as their joint family ...
Bhangre Purshotam and 35 ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR174; 1984MhLJ633
K. Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. 35 students of Smt. Chandibai H. Mansukhani College at Ulhasnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Mansukhani College') who have been admitted into the XIth Standard of that college but denied admission to the Government Technical High School at Ulhasnagar for the Workshop Technology Training Facility seek a writ of certiorary to quash the order of the Superintendent, Government Technical High School, Ulhasnagar, 4th respondent herein, dated 17th June, 1982 (Exh. E) and the order dated 22nd July, 1982 (Exhibit J) and to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to admit them to the XIth Standard in the technical subjects on the basis of merit amongst all the students seeking admission in that school.The few facts necessary to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties may be briefly noticed :2. Under the Maharashtra Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965 (Maharashtra Act No. 41 of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the State Board a...
Chandar Dayaldas Sindhi Vs. M.W. Chitale, Dy. Commissioner of Police
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR682
P.S. Shah, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners has challenged the order of externment dated May 5, 1984 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Kalyan, against him under section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged two contentions. Firstly, he submitted that the notice issued to the petitioner under section 59 of the Act is totally devoid of any particulars of the nature of the allegations against him which has prevented the petitioner from tendering any explanation as contemplated by section 59 of the Act. Secondly, he submitted that though the prejudicial activities imputed to the petitioner are confined to Ulhasnagar area, by the externment order the petitioner has been externed from the area of Thane, Greater Bombay and Raighad Districts. He submitted that the area mentioned in the order shows total non application of mind as there is no reason whatsoever for in...
Yamanawwa Bhlmappa Kamble Vs. Rayavva Nalappa Kamble
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR423
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This litigation spells a second inning taken by the present appellant in connection with her insistence to occupy the suit premises, which right has been held as un-established by both the courts below.2. The facts are simple :The appellant is the original defendant. The suit premises are admittedly governed by the Rent Act. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereafter as the 'plaintiff' and the 'defendant'. According to the plaintiff, the suit premises namely the two rooms in the house in question, are held by the plaintiff as a tenant. Further, according to the plaintiff, the two rooms are now in possession of the defendant by virtue of no right whatsoever and as such the defendant is a rank trespasser in respect of the premises. The defendant, on the other hand, had been contending, in the first place, that she was a sun-tenant licensee in respect of the suit premises. After the said plea has been finally rejected even by this Court in ...
industrial Cables (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1984
Reported in: 1989(23)LC264(Bombay)
Lentin, J.1. This appeal is the sequel to the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition by the learned single Judge.2. Hereunder the facts:(A) The appellant-Company carries on business as manufacturer of power cables and A.C.S.R. Conductors at Rajpura, Punjab. Between 1962 and 1965, the appellant imported electrolytic aluminium rods (other than extruded) through the Port of Bombay and paid countervailing duty aggregating to Rs. 3,72,863.04.(B) On I7th/18th March, 1972, the Gujarat High Court delivered a judgment in M/s. Prem Conductors Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Special Civil Application No 909 of 1970 with Special Civil Application Nos. 910 and 911 of 1970) holding that electrolytic aluminium (other than extruded) rods were not liable to countervailing duty under Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. (That judgment is pending in appeal in the Supreme Court. We are however assured by both learned Counsel that the same would have no bearing on our proceeding with...
Bankeshwardhan K. Dubey Vs. New Standard Engineering Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR141; [1984(49)FLR108]; 1984MhLJ771
B.C. Gadgil, J.1. The petitioner who was an employee with M/s. New Standard Engineering Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 1) has filed this petition challenging the order of the 8th Labour Court, Bombay, in Application No. 416 of 1983. By that application the petitioner had claimed bonus from respondent No. 1 for the year 1981-82 (i.e. from 1-4-1981 to 31-3-1982) in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bonus Act'). The Labour Court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was disqualified from receiving the bonus as laid down by section 9 of the Bonus Act.2. The facts are not in dispute in the present case. The petitioner was in service of respondent No. 1 and has rendered such service during the year 1981-82. However, the petitioner is said to have committed a misconduct in the night between 18/19 4-1982. That misconduct is in the shape of an assault on the other employee of respondent No. 1. An inquiry was held for...
Shaba Yeshwant Naik Vs. Vinod Kumar Gosalia and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom79; 1984MhLJ699
Waikar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the original judgment-debtor and it raises a question about the interpretation and import of S. 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter called 'the Code'). The question arises under the following set of facts : -2. Shri Shaba Naik (appellant) obtained a money decree in Civil Suit No. 26 of 1969 against Shri Govind Naik (Respondent No.3) in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao. On the application of the decree-holder for execution, certain immovable properties situate at Quepem outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Margao Court were attached on 17-7-1969. The Margao Court by its order dt. 8-7-1969 had also issued an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from selling property to any one. On 3-9-1969, that is, after the attachment of the property, it appears that the present respondents 1 and 2 (husband and wife) purchased this property from the judgment-debtor -- the respondent No. 3.3. Subsequently on 4-1-1973 the Margao Court,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »