Mumbai Court July 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.
K.V. Kousalya Subramanian and ors. Vs. Riyaz Mohamad and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1984
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC371
Sawant, J.1.This is an appeal by the Claimants against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nasik. The original Claimants were the widow, two minor children and the mother and father of the deceased, who was a victim of a motor accident. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation to the Claimants, including Rs. 15,000/- for consortium to the widow and Rs. 10,000/- for shock and suffering to the mother and father. It is aggrieved by this quantum, that all the Claimants preferred the present appeal. During she pendency of the appeal, Appellant No. 4 died, and hence, the appeal is being prosecuted by rest of the Claimants only.2. Shri Suchak, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Claimants, contended that the Tribunal had under-calculated the amount of compensation. His first contention was that the Tribunal had proceeded on the basis that the deceased was to retire at the age of 65 years. For this presumption there was no evid...
Syed KabiruddIn Vs. the Dean, Government Medical College, Nagpur and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom199
Ginwala, J.1. The petitioner was a candidate for admission to one of the two Medical Colleges in Nagpur. As provided in the Rules regulating admission to the Medical Colleges of the Government of Maharashtra for the academic Year 1983-84 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ), some candidates have been admitted in open category. The last of such candidates had secured 252 corrected marks. The corrected marks of the petitioner work out to 251and hence he was not admitted. We are told that he stands at serial No. 5 in the waiting list. He has challenged some of the provisions contained in the rules regarding addition of marks and reservation of some seats. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submission to his challenge to two of such provisions. One of them is contained in R. 4C(xiii) read with 6B (v) under which 3 marks are added to the total of a student 'affected by a Defense/Irrigation Project as stated in R. 4C(xiii)'. The other provision i...
Thana Electric Supply Company Ltd. and ors. Vs. Maharashtra State Elec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom48; ILR1985Bom1514
Bharucha, J.1. This writ petition, which has been referred for hearing and final disposal to a Division Bench, concerns the compulsory purchase by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, respondent 1, of the undertaking of the Thana Electric Supply Company Ltd., petitioner 1. Principally the petition challenges the constitutionality of the Electricity (Maharashtra Amendment)Act, 44 of 1976.2. To appreciate the rival contentions a chronology of events needs to be set out.3. On 14th September 1927 the Government of Bombay by notification issued a licence under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 1910, known as the Thana Electric Licence, 1927 to Messrs Phiroze Erachshaw, Behramji Muncherji and Rustomji Pestonji carrying on business in partnership in the name of M/s P. Patel and Company. Clause 11 of the said licence (which was later renumbered clause 12) read thus: 'Purchase of undertaking 11. (1) the option of purchase given by S. 7 of the Act shall first be exercisable on the expir...
Chandrakant Govindrao Shinde Vs. Naliammabai Narsappa Padram (Smt.) an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR595; (1985)87BOMLR278; 1984MhLJ828
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Chandrakant Govindrao Shinde filed a suit for eviction against Balraj and others under sections 12(3)(a), 13-A 1 and 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. It was contended by the landlord that a demand notice was served on Narsappa, the original tenant, on 7-10-1976 under section 12(2) of Rent Act since he was in arrears of rent from 1-10-1973 to 30-9-1976. Inspite of this demand notice, the tenant filed to pay the amount due within a period of one month and, therefore, he was entitled to the possession of the suit property under section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. It was also contended by him that he was serving in the Air Force as a Flight Engineer and has retired from service on 27-5-1970 and thereafter required the suit premises for his own occupation. In support of this claim he also produced a certificate under section 13-A1 of the Rent Act. He also claimed possession under section 13(1)(g) of the Act since her required the premises reasonably and bona fide for ...
Anil Vs. the Dean, Government Medical College, Nagpur and Two ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom153
Ginwala, J.1. the petitioner, who was one of the applicants for admission to the Government Medical College in Nagpur, challenges the validity of sub-cls. (b) and (d) of Cl. A of Rule 5 of the Rules made by the regulating admission to the Government (respondent No. 3) for regulating admission to the Government Medical Colleges for the year 1983-84 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The portion of the rule which is relevant for our purpose is in the following terms:--'5 Reservation of Seats A. Reservation of Backward Classes - (a) The percentage of seats reserved at each college will be as follows:-- Serial Category Percentage of No. seats reserved 1. Scheduled castes and Scheduled castes converts to Buddhism .... 132. Scheduled Tribes including those living outside Specified areas ... 73. Denotified Tribes and Nomadic Tribes ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 4. Other Backward Communities ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. Total ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....
Padmadevi Shankarrao Jadhav and ors. Vs. Kabalising Garmilsing Sardarj ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1984
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC99
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants against the Award passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satara, dated 20th February 1982 in Claims Petition No. 16 of 1979, awarding an amount of Rs. 39,600/- to the minor children and dismissing the claim made by the widow.2. It is an admitted position that the deceased Shankarrao was working as a Head master in the New English High School at Atit, Taluka and District Satara. On 21st April 1979 he went to Karad for purchasing materials for the High School building which was then under construction. On that day he halted at Karad. On 22nd April 1979 he left Karad early in the morning at about 6 a.m. on his motor-cycle. When he came near the Milk Dairy, a goods truck bearing No. MTD 2812 driven by opponent no. 1 Kabalsing came from the opposite direction. It was being driven a high speed. The said truck all of a sudden, swerved to its right side and after coming near the motor-cycle of Shankarrao, it gave a da...
ismail Amir Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR615; (1984)86BOMLR408
Jahagirdar, J.1. Three persons, hereinafter referred to as 'the accused', were prosecuted in Sessions Case No. 366 of 1981 tried by Mr. N. I. Makhijani, the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bombay, for the offences to be mentioned hereinafter. Those offences have been mentioned in the charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, it would be appropriate to refer to the charges themselves. We are following this procedure because the impugned judgment is so hopelessly unsatisfactory that it does not give to the Court of appeal, where we are now sitting, the least idea of what the prosecution case was, what the evidence on behalf of the prosecution was and what exactly was passing in the mind of the learned Sessions Judge while he disposed of the case before him. We are mentioning something more about the quality of this judgment a little latter while discussing the case of accused No. 1 who alone has appealed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions...
Gulab Jagdusa Kakwane Vs. Kamal Gulab Kakwane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom88; 1985(1)BomCR82; (1983)86BOMLR662; 1984MhLJ681
Sawant, J.1. This is a revision application referred by the learned single Judge to the Division Bench. The only question of law involved in this petition is whether under S. 25(1), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the wife against whom a decree for divorce has been passed on the ground of adultery can claim maintenance against her husband. The relevant facts leading to the present petition are as follows :-The petitioner-husband and the respondent were married on 24-12-1972. According to the petitioner, the respondent deserted him on 26-9-1973 and he had no access to her since then. It is during the period of desertion, that she gave birth to a female child on 16-9-1974. She filed an application for maintenance both for herself and the child under S. 125, Cr. P.C. That application was dismissed and the revision application filed against the said order was also dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed a matrimonial petition for a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery. That petition wa...
Western Coalfields Ltd. and ors. Etc. Vs. Harichand Rai and Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Bom105
ORDER1. By these two revision applications, the applicants challenge the order dt. 17-2-1979 and 29-7-1980 by which the trial Courts, acting under S. 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act, appointed arbitrators by virtue of Cl.9 which was an arbitration clause in two agreements between the applicants and the opponents in the two cases.2. In Civil Revision Application No. 107 of 1980, the position was that the parties entered into an agreement on 4-6-1976 for transporting sand for Chanda Rayatwari Colliery which was owned by the applicants. The work commenced and was completed on 27-1-1977. The final bill was also paid to the opponent in that case and the bank guarantee for Rs. 50,000/- was also released. However, about one-and-a-half years after that was done, the opponent M/s. Harichand Rai sent a notice dt. 16-9-1978 contending that there was no dispute and calling upon applicant No.1 to appoint an arbitrator for settlement of the alleged dispute. A reply was sent by the applicants on 28-2...
Eighth Income-tax Officer Vs. Zinc and Chemical Agencies
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)13ITD337(Mum.)
1. The departmental appeal relates to the assessee's assessments for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 for which the respective previous years are from 1-7-1975 to 30-6-1976 and from 1-7-1976 to 30-6-1977. Cross appeal is by the assessee for the assessment year 1978-79. For the sake of convenience, all the three appeals are disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The assessee is a registered firm. It has entered into distributorship agreement dated 24-12-1974 with Kamani Metallic & Oxide (P.) Ltd. ('Kamanis'). The agreement is for a period of three years with a provision for renewal on mutual agreement. Clause 13 provides for termination of the agreement by giving four months' notice in writing by either party and clause 12 of the agreement provides for a deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs by the assessee or by its nominees with Kamanis, which is to carry an interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The assessee had given a notice of termination of distributorship agreement to Kam...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »