Mumbai Court August 1985 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.
Vinayakappa Suryabhanappa Dahenkar Vs. Dulichand Hariram Murarka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom193; 1987MhLJ274
1. Dulichand Hariram Murarka purported to purchase a four storeyed house No.19 in Municipal Ward No.14 and Nazul Sheet No. 26-C, Plot No. 71, 1 Malipura, Akola from Rameshwarappa, for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/- by a registered sale deed dt. 4-3-1964. The ground floor of the building consisted of three rooms out of which two rooms in the rear continued to remain with Vinayakappa the brother of the Vendor Rameshwarappa. The vendee Dulichand claimed that Vinayakappa was inducted into the premises as a tenant, that the rent was Rs.50/- plus Rs.5/- by way of electric charges per month and that Vinayakappa continued to pay the rent up to 3rd January 1967. Dulichand claims to have terminated the tenancy of Vinayakappa by notice dt. 29th October 1968, but as the latter did not comply, Dulichand filed Regular Civil Suit No.8/69 in the Court of Second Junior Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola, for eviction and possession. In the trial Court Vinayakappa resisted the suit denying the title o...
Guruprasad and Etc. Vs. Additional District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom288
ORDERDhabe, J.1. These are two connected writ petitions arising out of the same order passed under the provisions of the C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, 'the Rent Control Order'). The reference to the names of the parties would, however, be as in the writ petition No. 820/1982.2. It is necessary to state the facts in some detail for the purpose of appreciating the controversy raised in these petitions. One Shri M. V. Gokhale was the owner of the suit block in the instant case. In 1938 he let out the suit block to one Anandkumar Nigam for the purposes of running a shop named 'Chitra Arts Studio' which was a photo studio. The aforesaid Shri A. K. Nigam was the proprietor of the said studio. It was agreed between the said Shri M. V. Gokhale and the proprietor of the Chitra Arts Studio Shri A. K. Nigam that the latter should deposit the rent of the suit block in the Savings Bank Account No. 612 of the said Shri M. V. Gokhale with the United Commerci...
Shivaji Raghunath Gaikwad Vs. Jijabai Shivaji Gaikwad and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR394
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. The writ petition has been filed by the husband challenging the concurrent orders passed by the two courts below in proceedings arising out of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. The trial Magistrate granted Rs. 100/- per month by way of maintenance to the wife. The said order was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 15th September, 1984. The husband was the revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge He was unsuccessful. After he was unsuccessful before the trial Magistrate as well as before the revisional Court, he has filed the present writ petition challenging the said orders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.3. In the matters of maintenance, the litigants have been granted by the Parliament a remedy to have a statutory relief under section 125 of the Code and unsuccessful party in such a proceeding is provided with a revisional remedy and that remedy is complete. Under section 397(3) of the Co...
Ghelabhai Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR508
Masodkar, J.1. Lalita Kantilal Parmar met with homicidal death in the evening of April 1, 1980 after being taken in an injured condition to the Breach Candy Hospital. The dead body of Lalita was subjected to post-mortem examination by Dr. Prabhakar Katke (P.W. 9) whose post-mortem notes are at Exhibit 18, while the case papers which were produced by Dr. Neminath Patil (P.W. 8) are at Exhibit 16. They clearly go to show that Lalita was assaulted by means of a sharp-edged weapon like knife. She was rushed in an injured condition by Homi Sethna (P.W. 2) first to the Parsi General Hospital and thereafter to the Breach Candy Hospital where she succumbed.2. The present appellant-accused is father-in-law of the deceased Lalita. The prosecution alleges that he had a motive against the deceased Lalita, for he suspected some illicit relations she had developed with Govind Patel (P.W. 6). It is further suggested by the prosecution that while the deceased Lalita and her husband Kantibhai (P.W. 7) ...
Arjandas Takandas Kataria Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1985
Reported in: 1990(48)ELT242(Bom)
Kurdukar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated September 10,1979, passed by the learned single Judge dismissing Misc. Petition No. 1713 of 1979 summarily.2. The appellants in this appeal are the original petitioners - who will be hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners'. Petitioner No. 2 is a partnership firm of which petitioner No. 1 is a partner along with three other partners. The 1st respondent is the Assistant Collector of Customs. The 2nd respondent is the appellate authority under the Customs Act. The 3rd respondent is the Union of India. The 4th respondent is the Corporation and a subsidiary company of State Trading Corporation. Respondents 5,6 and 7 were the partners of the old firm.3. The 1st petitioner along with respondents Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 3 other partners constituted a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Takandas H. Kataria at Bombay and were carrying on the business. This firm (hereinafter referred to 'old firm') was dissolved on December 3...
Sheshrao and Etc. Vs. Sonchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom54; 1985(2)BomCR582
Deshpande, J.1. The three sets of tenants occupying three different shop premises in a house, have appealed from the orders dismissing their Writ Petitions against the permission granted by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority, under clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of House and Rent Control Order, 1949 ( the Rent Control Order for short ).2. The respondent Sonchand and his grandson Kishore, aged about 20 years, formed a joint Hindu family which owned a house comprising three shop-premises, two of which were of size 6' X 8 1/2' and the third of the size 10' X 10'. The respondent was in possession of a portion 6' X 6 1/2' out of that building which was situated in a business locality near Saroj Talkies at Yavatmal. Sonchand applied to the Rent Controller for permission to give notice determining the leases of the three sets of tenants, on the ground that he wanted the premises, for his own occupation, i.e., for the purpose of opening a stationary and G...
State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Ranjeet Construction
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom76; 1986MhLJ401
1. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, dated 6-8-1984 in Misc. Application No. 138 of 1984. That was an application under Section 8(1)(b) of Arbitration Act, 1940 for the appointment of an Arbitrator. The State of Maharashtra, which was the Opponent in the matter, in its say Exh.9 contended that the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application. According to the State tenders were called for construction of a Hostel at Kolhapur. The Applicant's tender having been accepted, the contract was signed on 11-4-1979 at Kolhapur, and the work awas to be finished within 30 months expiring on 10-10-1981. A dispute having arisen with respect to such a contract, the Applicant, Respondent herein, invoking Clause 30 of the contract, called upon Superintending Engineer to arbitrate. The Superintending Engineer entered upon arbitration. But in view of clarification letter...
Shaukat Mohd. Shikalgar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR436
D.N. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner Shaukat Mohd. Shikalgar has filed this Criminal Revision Application impugning the Judgment and Order dated 28-2-1984 passed by the learned II Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Satara dismissing his Appeal and confirming his conviction and sentence under sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner herein, who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the accused', was charged with the offence of housebreaking and theft committed in the house of complainant Mohan Dharamchand Bhatiya in Sadar Bazar, Satara, on the night between 30-3-1982 and 31-3-1982 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his judgment and Order dated 29-9-1982 accepted the prosecution evidence as reliable and trustworthy and convicted the accused under section 457 and section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in...
S.S. Kaigaonkar (Deceased) Vs. Gold Control Administrator
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1985
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT566Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal filed against the Order No. GC/10-5/Adj/76 dt. January, 1979 passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune, before the Gold Control Administrator, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as under: On 11-4-76 the Inspector of Central Excise (Prev.) Headquarters, Pune, visited the business premises of M/s S.G. Kaigaonkar and checked the statutory registers as well as the actual stock of gold and gold ornaments. The statutory registers were found written upto 31-3-76. There were certain sale receipts for the period during 3-4-76 to 11-4-76. Even after taking the said receipts into consideration the two appellants in whose presence the checking was done could not satisfactorily account for the new gold ornaments weighing 1548.750 gms. valued at Rs.74,100/-. The Central Excise Inspector seized the excess gold ornaments in the reasonable belief that the appellants had contravened t...
Shri S.G. Kaigaonkar and ors. Vs. Gold Control Administrator
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1985
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2137Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal filed against the Order No. GC/10-5/Adj/76, dated January, 1976 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune, before the Gold Control Administrator, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as under : On 11-4-1976 the Inspector of Central Excise (Prev.) Headquarters, Pune, visited the business premises of M/s. S.G. Kaigaonkar and checked the statutory registers as well as the actual stock of gold and gold ornaments. The statutory registers were found written upto 31-3-1976. There were certain sale receipts for the period during 3-4-1976 to 11-4-1976. Even after taking the said receipts into consideration the two appellants in whose presence the checking was done could not satisfactorily account for the new gold ornaments weighing 15t8.750 gms. valued at Rs. 74.100/-. The Central Excise Inspector seized the excess gold ornaments in the reasonable belief that the appellants had c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »