Mumbai Court October 1996 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.
Smt. Sugarbai Mohamad Siddiq and ors. Vs. Ramesh Sundar Hankare Deceas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR44; 1997(2)BomCR620
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. These two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment, as they arise out of the judgment and decree, passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 378/81 dated 23rd December, 1983. To understand the facts of the present case, I would refer to the facts as are given in Writ Petition No. 307/91, since the facts being common.2. Writ Petition No. 307/91, is filed by one Ramesh Sundar, who happened to be the respondent in another petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 3262/89. The present respondents in Writ Petition No. 307/91 are the landlords of the premises in question, who have filed Writ Petition No. 3262/89.3. Smt. Sugarbai Mohd. Sadiq with her son, Mohd. Ramjan, who are respondents 1 and 2 respectively (in W.P. No. 307/91) are the landlords who filed Civil Suit for recovery of possession of the shop premises, admeasuring 15 x 10 ft. out of the ground floor area of the house i.e. City Survey Nos. 27 and 27-A, having Munici...
Anant Waman Tare Vs. Abdul Rehman Abdul Guffur Antulay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR684
K.G. Shah, J.1. This Chamber Summons has been taken out by the Respondent in the Main Election Petition viz Returned Candidate who has been declared elected as a Member of the Parliament from Constituency No. 3 Kulaba, Parliamentary Constituency, District Raigad. The election petitioner has challenged the election of the respondent on the grounds contemplated by Sections 100(d)(iii) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act').2. On the Election Petition being filed, summons was ordered to be served to the Respondent, and was accordingly served. Along with the summons, a copy of the election petition has been served to the respondent. The respondent by this chamber summons prays for the rejection of the Election Petition, contending that the copy of the Election Petition, which has been served to him, is not a true copy of the original election petition, and therefore, there is infringement of Section 81(3) of the Act, the consequences of which should be...
Venus Housing Enterprises Vs. Parmy Manufactory Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR364
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr. Narula waives service for respondent No. 1. Mr. Reis waives service for respondent No. 2.2. By consent, revision application heard finally at this stage.3. Legality and correctness of the order passed by the City Civil Court on 29/6/1996 rejecting chamber summons of the present petitioner for its impleadment in L.C. Suit No. 307 of 1996 is impugned in the present revision application.4. The respondent No. 1 herein namely Parmy . filed the suit in the Court of City Civil Court against the respondent No. 2 herein i.e. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay impleading it as a sole defendant. In the said suit the plaintiff claimed that he was owner of the structure admeasuring 6952 sq. metres situated at final plot No. 874 of Veer Savarkar Marg, Dadar, Bombay and the said structure is in actual physical possession, use and occupation of the plaintiff for the last 45 years. According to the plaintiff the plaintiff could not repair the su...
Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and anr. Vs. Bhimrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: 1(1998)ACC250
B.U. Wahane, J.1. The appellants in the instant first appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, questioned the findings recorded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Yaotmal, in Workmen Compensation Case No. 6 of 1990, decided on 11th February, 1992.2. The facts in brief are that the respondent-Bhimrao Manikrao Unhale at the relevant time i.e. on the date of accident precisely on 1st March, 1990, was working as Driver, driving Road-roller. He was getting fixed salary of Rs. 1,380/- per month as Driver. At the relevant time, the respondent Bhimrao was of about 41 to 42 years of age.On 1st of March, 1990, while on duty, he came under the Road-roller and his left arm was crushed. Immediately, he was removed to the hospital. His left arm above the elbow was imputed. Dr. Vishnu (P.W. 2) - the Medical Officer, (sic) examined the respondent, deposed that his left hand was crushed and the same (sic) imputed. Exh. 26 is the Medical Certificate issued by the do...
Society Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mary Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom208
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By the order dated 18-9-1996 the City Civil Court rejected the chamber summons took out by the present petitioner-plaintiff No.2 seeking condonation of delay in carrying out of amendment. Shorn of unnecessary details, on 8-3-95 the trial Court allowed the chamber summons took out by the plaintiff seeking amendment in the plaint. In that order no date was fixed for carrying out amendment. Obviously in absence of any specific time prescribed in the order, under Order 6, Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, the amendment was required to be carried out within fourteen days from the date of the order. However, it appears that on 26-3-96 the Court below granted time to the plaintiff to carry out amendment on 24-4-96. It is common ground of the learned counsel for the parties that on the stipulated date the amendment was not carried-out and plaintiff sought adjournment which was granted and case was adjourned to 27-6-96. On that day also the am...
Parlhad S/O Anantram Gajbhiye Vs. the Additional District Magistrate a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR445; 1998(2)BomCR438
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Aggrieved by the two concurrent orders, one by the Rent Controller and another by the Appellate Authority, the tenant Pralhad Anantram Gajbhiye comes before this Court by way of the present writ petition. The dispute is between the landlord and the tenant. The petitioner is a tenant while respondent No. 2 claims to be his landlord.2. The dispute started with an application by the respondent No. 2 who was then . a minor, filed before the Rent Controller contending therein that the present petitioner was his tenant and that he had fallen in arrears of rent for more than three months. He has also become a habitual defaulter and his continuation is proved to be a nuisance because of his engaging himself in quarrels. It was claimed that the tenant had not paid rent since 1-1-1985 till date. It was further contended that a notice was served on 27-1-1986 requesting to vacate the premises and also for making the payment of arrears of rent upto date, but the said notic...
Shri Harun Habibullah Shaikh Vs. Shri R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)357; 1997CriLJ2085; 1997(3)MhLj104
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. By this petition, preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the detention order dated 25-3-1996 passed by the respondent No. 1, by virtue of the powers vested in him by Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981, detaining him under the said Act. 2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner necessitating the issuance of the impugned detention order are contained in the grounds of detention, bearing the same date, as the detention order i.e. 25-3-1996. A true copy of the grounds is annexed as Annexure-C to the petition. Both, the detention order and the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner contemporaneously on 26-3-1996. Briefly stated the grounds of detention read thus :- The petitioner along with his associates, servants, hirelings-drivers, transported illicit liquor in motor cars, jeeps and tempo and used to deliver the same in diffe...
Salmona Villa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mary Fernande ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR470
R. M. Lodha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By the order dated 18-9-1996 the City Civil Court rejected the chamber summons took out by the present petitioner plaintiff No. 2 seeking condonation of delay in carrying out amendment. Shorn of unnecessary details, on 8-3-96 the trial Court allowed the chamber summons took out by the plaintiff seeking amendment in the plaint. In that order no date was fixed for carrying out amendment. Obviously in the absence of any specific time prescribed in the order, under Order 6, Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, the amendment was required to be carried out within fourteen days from the date of the order. However, it appears that on 26-3-96 the Court below granted time to the plaintiff to carry out amendment on 24-4-96. It is common ground of the learned Counsel for the parties that on the stipulated date the amendment was not carried-out and plaintiff sought adjournment which was granted and case was adjourned to 27-6-96. On that da...
Deora Barku Keda and anr. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Mandir and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR268
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two writ petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 249 and 250 of 1989 as both of them involve decision on related questions of facts as well as law. The controversy giving rise to the filing of the present writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India may be noticed.2. In Writ Petition No. 249 of 1989, the petitioner claims to have been appointed as Lecturer in Chemistry in M.S.G. Arts, Science and Commerce College. The said college is stated to be run by the society styled as Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Mandir. The petitioner claims that he was fully eligible to be appointed on the post of Lecturer. He came to be appointed as Lecturer on 16th September 1995. He claims to have been appointed by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The translation of this order of appointment may be reproduced here as it would be useful for the decision of the controversy involved.'MANAGING COUNCIL OF COLLEGE EDUCATION MALEGAON CAMP (DIST. N...
State of Goa Vs. Srinivas Fatti Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR376; (1996)98BOMLR665
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The present appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in First Appeal No. 115/87 on 12.1.1990 whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein against the Award dated 30th June. 1987 which was passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, at Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 18/85.2. The respondent herein preferred a Reference under Section IX of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) for enhancement of compensation awarded to him regarding his land and acquired by the appellant for Distributory D2 of S.I.P. in Paroda Village (Part II) in Land Acquisition Case No. SLAO/SIP/104/1/710/85-86. The enhancement of the compensation claimed by the respondent herein was to the extent of Rs. 60/- per sq.m. and further sum of Rs. 34,290/- towards the value of the trees in the plot. The learned District Judge of Margao being satisfied with the evidence produced before h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »