Mumbai Court August 1992 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.
V.S. Malshetty Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR724
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioner retired as a Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay on 30th of September 1989. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Police Prosecutor in April 1967. On 21st April, 1970 he was appointed as Civil Judge, Junior Division. On the date of his appointment, the age of the petitioner was 38 years and 6 months. On his retirement, his services which have been taken into account for the purposes of pension and other retirement benefits is for the entire period from the date when he was appointed Police Prosecutor until the date of his retirement. It is the contention of the petitioner that under Rule 53(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 Government servants whose whole pensionable service has been rendered in one or the other of the posts of service mentioned below and whose qualifying service for pension is not less than 10 years, may add to their service qualifying for Superannuation Pension, the number of years by which their age on appo...
The State Bank of India Vs. Javed Akhtar HussaIn and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR421; (1992)94BOMLR585
ORDER1. Against the impugned order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur below exhibit 6 in Special Darkhast No. 200/-91 dated 6-2-1992 by which lien created by the decree-holder Bank/ present applicant on the Term Deposit Receipt and Recurring Deposit Account (for short, 'the TD.R.& R.D. A/c' respectively) of the original judgment-debtor/present-non-applicant No. 2, is released, this civil revision application is filed by the applicant/decree-holder. 2. The applicant filed Special Civil SuitNo. 312 of 86 for recovery of Rs. 64,305.48 from the principal debtor/defendant No. 1 (present respondent No. 1-judgment-debtor) and the non-applicant No. 2 who stood as a surety to the non-applicant No. I. Accordingly, the documents were also executed by the respondents in favour of the applicant. Both the non-applicants remained absent and hence the suit came to be decreed and subsequently, the applicant/decree-holder filed Special Darkhast No. 200 of 91 on 16-8-91 for reco...
Rama Aziz Parpia and ors. Vs. Balkrishna K. Mehta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR267; (1993)95BOMLR951
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This originating summons has been taken out by some of the legatees under the Will of the deceased Dr. Vithaldas Ladhabhai Parmar (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') for certain directions to the executors of the estate of the deceased.2. The plaintiffs are the married daughters of the deceased. The first two defendants are the executors of the Will of the deceased. The third defendant is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, being the widow of late Jamnadas Parmar, a son of the deceased. Defendant No. 4 is another son of the deceased.3. The deceased, Dr. Parmar, was practising as a Surgeon in Bombay and had a large practice. He had his consultation rooms at Laud Mansion, Charni Road, which were taken on tenancy from the owner of the said building. Out of the large income earned by him, with prudent investments, he acquired several properties during his lifetime. The deceased executed a Will dated 9th May, 1974, making provisions for certain pecuniary legac...
R.P. Patankar, Asstt. Collector of Customs Vs. Mussa Wamla and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR604
S.M. Daud, J.1. The main question arising in these applications being common a single judgment is being delivered, though the incidental question that arises separately in three of the applicants will be attended to in the later part of the judgment.2. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (No. 61 of 1985) was enacted with a view to consolidate and amend the law relating to Narcotic Drugs and to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operation etc. Until 28th May, 1989 the offenders were being tried by Magistrates where the punishment for the offences was less than seven years. In respect of offences which were punishable with imprisonment for 10 years and more, the Magistrates were passing committal orders for which reason the trial had to take place before the Court of Sessions. An Amendment was effected to the Act by virtue of Act 2 of 1989. Section 36 of the principal Act was substituted extensively the new sections being numbered sections 36...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›