Mumbai Court June 1988 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.
Vasant Arjun Rachh (Dr.) Vs. Nirmalal Ramniklal Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR462
S.M. Daud, J.1. Complainant-petitioner impugns the rejection of an application moved by him for taking on record what was described as 'additional evidence'.2. The petitioner and his wife are at loggerheads with respondents Nos. 1 and 2-hereinafter to be referred to as the 'accused'. On 10-10-1982, the complainant lodged a written report at the Wagle Estate Police Station at Thane ascribing to accused the commission of offences punishable under various sections of the Penal Code including sections 454, 457, 380 and 341. The police registered an offence and after the requisite investigation lodged a charge-sheet in the Court of J.M.F.C. at Thane. After the charge-sheet had been lodged, so says the Roznama, a charge was framed on 18-10-1984 . No trace of the said charge was forth-coming and therefore on 8-6-1986, the Magistrate presiding over the Court re-framed a charge. According to this charge, the accused were called upon to face the accusation of having committed offences punishable...
Datta Pandi Bokan Vs. Babu Raoji Babar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1988
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR325
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. This second appeal is filed by original defendant No. 1 Datta s/o Pandit Bokan. The plaintiff Babu, who was respondent No. 1 in this second appeal died during the pendency of this appeal, and an order came to be passed on 11-4-1986 in Civil Application No. 1206/- 85, by which it is directed that the respondent No. 2 shall be representing the cause of the respondent No. 1.2. The respondent No. 2 Raosaheb was real nephew of the plaintiff Babu. Raosaheb sold the property to defendant No. 1 Datta by a sale deed, dated 1st November, 1972. The claim of the plaintiff is that the sale deed executed by Raosaheb in favour of Datta is ineffective and inoperative.3. The trial Court framed several issues; one of the main issue, with which we are concerned in this Second Appeal, is issue No. 4, which is as follows :'Does Defendant No. 1 prove that he is agriculturist and hence sale deed executed by Defendant No. 2 in his favour without permission is valid as contended by him ?'Th...
Datta Pandit Bokan Vs. Babu Raoji Babar Through Legal Representative a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR38; 1989MhLJ948
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. This second appeal is filed by original defendant No. 1 Datta s/o Pandit Bokan. The plaintiff Babu, who was respondent No. 1 in this second appeal died during the pendency of this appeal, and an order came to be passed on 11-4-1986 in Civil Application No. 1206/85, by which it is directed that the respondent No. 2 shall be representing the cause of the respondent No. 1.2. The respondent No. 2 Raosaheb was real nephew of the plaintiff Babu. Raosaheb sold the property to defendant No. 1 Datta by a sale deed, dated 1st November, 1972. The claim of the plaintiff is that the sale deed executed by Raosaheb in favour of Datta is ineffective and inoperative. 3. The trial Court framed several issues; one of the main issue, with which we are concerned in this Second Appeal is issue No. 4, which is as follows:'Does defendant No. 1, prove that he is agriculturist and hence sale-deed executed by defendant No. 2 in his favour without permission is valid as contended by him The tr...
Smt. Ratanbai V. Kamat Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR447
G.D. Kamat, J.1. The petitioner prays for a declaration that column 9 of Form P.Co. Sp. A prescribed under the Goa, Daman and Diu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1965 be struck down for being null and void on the ground that it is unconstitutional and at the same time prays for a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the letter dated March 17, 1988 by the Officer on Special Duty (H.Q.) Directorate of Transport, respondent No. 3 which requires the petitioner to file a list of passengers who are travel in her vehicle.2. The facts giving rise to this petition shortly stated are that the petitioner is a partner of the firm in the name and style of West Coast Tours and Travels. The firm carries on the business of conducting tours and transportation of passengers for hire and reward. On March 15, 1988 the petitioner made an application to the Regional Transport Authority under section 63(6) of the Motor Veh...
Ramrao Maroti Bajad Vs. Dharmal Sansthan Varchapari Marimay Sansthan o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR33
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The principal question that falls for consideration in this letters Patent Appeal is whether sub-section (3) of section 106 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (V.R.) Act, 1958 ('the Act') confers a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by the order or decision of a Tahsildar in execution proceedings conducted under sub-section (2) of section 106.2. The factual background against which the point arise can be stated thus : Dharmal Sansthan, Gaiwadi, tahsil Darypur, district Amravati the respondent) was the owner of an agricultural land of which Ramrao Maroti Bajad (the appellant) was a tenant. The land owner after terminating the tenancy on the ground of non-payment of lease money applied for possession of the land under section 19 read with section 36 of the Act. Conditional order granting possession on failure of payment of lease money within a specified period was passed by the Additional Tahsildar. Daryapur on 17-3-1981. On expiry of the said time the land o...
Ramrao S/O Maroti Bajad Vs. Dharmal Sansthan Varchapari Marimay Sansth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR180
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The principal question that falls for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether sub-section (3) of section 106 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (V.R.) Act, 1958 ('the Act') confers a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by the order or decision of a Tahsildar in execution proceedings conducted under sub-section (2) of section 106.2. The factual background against which the point arises can be stated thus : Dharmal Sansthan, Gaiwadi, Tahsil Darayapur, district Amravati (the respondent) was the owner of an agricultural land of which Ramrao Maroti Bajad (the appellant) was a tenant. The land owner, after terminating the tenancy on the ground of non payment of lease money, applied for possession of the land under section 19 read with section 36 of the Act. Conditional order granting possession on failure of payment of lease money within a specified period was passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Darayapur on 17-3-1981. On expiry of the said time the...
Jaymala B. Chopadkar Vs. Maharashtra S.R.T. Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1988
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ11Bom
P.B. Sawant, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a Typist with the respondent-corporation from May, 1980. On account of an incident of a quarrel between her and another employee on April 28, 1983, she was served with a charged-sheet on May 12, 1983 and was also suspended from service from that day. She replied to the charge-sheet on May 24, 1983. Subsequently, an enquiry officer was appointed and an enquiry fixed. On account of her illness, she wanted an adjournment of the enquiry which was not granted and the enquiry proceeded ex parte. The enquiry officer held the charges proved and recommended dismissal, as a result of which she was dismissed from service with effect from July 22, 1983. The departmental appeal filed against the order of dismissal failed, and as a result the petitioner approached the Labour Court by her complaint under Section 28 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). To this complaint, the Corporation filed its written stateme...
L.L.Constructions and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR129
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The subject matter of this writ petition is land bearing C.T.S. No.24 in Village Paspauli of Kurla Taluka in the Bombay Suburban District. The 1st petitioner is the present owner of this property. The 2nd petitioner is a partner of the 1st petitioner firm. The original 3rd petitioner was claiming to be the previous owner of this property. The 3rd petitioner died before the hearing of this petition and his name has now been deleted. The land which is the subject matter of this petition was originally Khoti land and it formed part of Khoti Survey No.63. After the abolition of Khoti this piece of land was renumbered during a survey which was carried out in that village in the year 1957. The said land was entered in the revenue records as Gaothan land admeasuring 1 acre and 34 gunthas. The original third petitioner claimed to be in occupation of this land since the year 1949. As an occupant of gaothan land he claimed to be the holder of this land.2. By an order dated 3...
Manilal Kher Ambalal and Co. Vs. A.G. Lulla, Seventh Income-tax Office ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(Bom)44; [1989]176ITR253(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The petitioners are a firm of solicitors and advocates enrolled more than fifty years ago. As such the petitioners are subject to the rules framed by the Bombay High Court in respect of maintenance of accounts relating to their professional work.2. Under rule 10 of the Rules of the Bombay High Court, Original Side, the petitioners are required to keep separate accounts in respect of monies received from or on account of their clients. This amount is required to be kept in a separate account in the bank in the name of the advocates which is known as 'Client's account'. Rule 12 describes what money can be paid into a client's account. Rule 13 prescribes what money can be withdrawn from a client's account. It, inter alia, provides that no money shall be drawn from a client's account other than money properly required for payment to or on behalf of a client or for or towards payment of a debt due to the advocate from a client or money drawn on client's authority. Fo...
Janardhan Walu Gadekar Vs. Assistant Collector and Competent Authority ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR74; 1988MhLJ773
C.S. Dharmadhkari, J. 1. As all these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. It is the case of the petitioner Janardhan Walu Gadekar in Writ petition No. 887 of 1984 that he is an agriculturist residing in a farmhouse with the members of his family in an agricultural land bearing S. No. 37/1 admeasuring 90 Ars situate at Deolali in District Nashik. The said land is situated within the Municipal limits of erstwhile Nashik Road-Deolali Municipal Council, constituted under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act and now merged in the Nashik Municipal Corporation constituted under the Bombay Provincial Corporation Act, 1949. According to the petitioners along with the members of his family he is cultivating the said land and growing therein crops like sugarcane, grapes, wheat, Bajri and other bagayat and bhusar crops. There is a well situated in the said land which is utilised for growing bagayat cro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »