Mumbai Court July 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.
Shri O. Venkat Raman Reddy, Asst. Conservator of Forest Vs. the Govern ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR506
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The Union Public Service Commission had called for the applications for appointment of Assistant Conservator of Forests, in the Department of Forest, Government of Goa. The petitioner applied for the post and he was interviewed in June, 1981. By order dated 27-6-1981, which order was issued by the Union Public Service Commission, the petitioner was selected and recommended for the appointment to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests, as evidenced by Exhibit 'A'. By order dated 21-8-1981, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu offered appointment to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests, of course, after successful completion of the training for which he was deputed on payment of stipend. The said order also stipulated that after successful completion of the training, he would be appointed in the Forest Department of Goa, in the pay scale of Rs. 650-30-740-35-810-EB-35-880-40-1000-EB-40-1200. It was also mentioned therein that the...
Bhiva Maruti Kopnar and ors. Vs. Sonba Babaji Kopnar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR534
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. This is a petition arising out of the judgment and order, dated 30-11-1984, passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, in Revision Application No. MRT.AH.I./2/83 (TEN.B.11/83), wherein the revision of the petitioners is dismissed by the Revenue Tribunal upholding the findings given by the courts below that the present respondent - Sonba Babaji Kopnar has become the owner of the suit land bearing Survey No. 134 of village Rakshaswadi (Bk.) on 1-4-1957 in accordance with the provisions of section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This ownership was subject to the conditions that the purchase of the suit land was under section 43 of the Act and further that the fresh purchase certificate should be issued in the name of tenant purchaser after deposit of the full purchase price and the previous purchase certificate would stand cancelled.2. To understand the rival contentions, it would be nece...
Purushottamdas Vs. Meeradevi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC16
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The order granting maintenance to the original respondent/wife (non-applicant herein) and her son, pendente lite, is the subject-matter of this revision. By the instant order, the Trial Court awarded Rs. 2,000/- per month each in favour of the wife and the son. The Trial Court also awarded Rs. 2,500/- towards cost of the litigation.2. The present applicant Purushottamdas filed a divorce petition before the Trial Court on various grounds. This petition was filed on 20.11.1990. The wife appeared and resisted the petition by filing a written-statement. However, thereafter, the wife came out with an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was filed in August, 1992. This application came to be opposed by the husband. The wife had claimed in her application that she was driven out by the husband and she was required to stay separately alongwith her son Ram who was about 11 years old. She also contended that it was on account of the attitude of the hu...
Kailashpati Kedia Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ681
ORDER1. The petitioner Kailashpati Kedia s/o Mahabirprasad Kedia, the Chairman of the business group known as 'House of Kedia' has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the first information report registered vide Crime No. 53/96 on dated 23-2-1996 by the Inspector, Flying Squad No. I, State Excise Department, Nagpur under Sections 65(a), (e) 66(1)(b), 81, 83, 108 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, hereinafter for short 'the Act' and under Rule 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Maharashtra Through Transport Rules 1952. 2. Shortly stated, the facts are as under :- The petitioner company, Kedia Castle Dellon Industries Limited, runs a unit in Kumhari, district Durg (Madhya Pradesh) for manufacture of Indian made Foreign Liquor, for short 'IMFL', the registered office of which is at 6-B, Express Towers, 42A, Shakessspere Sarani, Calcutta. According to the petitioner, he is the Chairman of Hous...
Narayan Kanu Datavale and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)138; 1997CriLJ1788
Sahai, J.1. Vide Judgment and order dated 16-10-1982, passed in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1982, the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinafter :- i) Under Section 302 r/w section 149, IPC to imprisonment for life. ii) Under section 147, IPC to one year RI; and iii) Under section 148, IPC to two years RI. In addition, the appellant Mahadeo Devji Gambhir was convicted under sections 325, IPC and 323 IPC. Under the first count, he was awarded a sentence of two years RI and under the second count, a sentence of one year RI; and appellant Dattaram Devji Gambhir was convicted under section 323, IPC and sentenced to undergo two years RI. tences of the appellants were directed to run concurrently. may be mentioned that along with the appellants, 12 persons namely : 1) Marauti Vithal Batavale 2) Laxman Hari Batavale 3) Damu Govind Gade 4) Damu Bhiku Gothekar 5) Narayan Dagdu Kare 6) Parshuram Rama Batavale 7) Nathuram Vithoba Bata...
Madhavrao S/O Anandrao Dhupe and ors. Vs. Vyankatrao Bajirao Bhosale a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR240; (1996)98BOMLR585
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. Regular Civil Suit No. 155/75 was initiated by the present petitioners against the respondents on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Udgir, for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents alleging that the present petitioner happened to be the tenant initially on Field Survey No. 49, situated at Handergulli, tq. Udgir, district Latur, of which the original owner was one Ramrao Ganpat Patil. It was the case of the present petitioner, who happened to be the plaintiff in the suit that this Survey No. 49 was with an area of total 22 acres and 17 gunthas, out of which he had already purchased 10 acres from Ramrao vide two sale-deeds, in the name of his sons i.e. petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, which were dated 1-8-1974. Remaining area of 12 acres and 17 gunthas, according to the petitioner, was in his possession as a tenant thereon and there was also an agreement, according to him, to purchase the same from the said Ramrao. It was also the case of the ...
Union Bank of India Vs. M/S. J.B. Khanna and Co. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom409; (1996)98BOMLR46
1. This is a suit for recovery of money on the basis of contract of guarantee. Defendant No. 2 has contended the suit by filing written Statement. The other Defendants have not filed any Written Statement and have not taken part during trial. Second Defendant has also taken a third party notice to all the Defendants, But the notice was served only on Defendants Nos. ] & 3. The other Defendants have not been served. Both the Plaintiff and the second Defendant have not adduced any oral evidence. Both parties have filed some documents, which have been marked by consent. The Plaintiff's documents are marked as Exhibit A to Exhibit Z and Exhibit A1 to Exhibit AA. Second Defendant's documents are marked as Exhibits 1 to 21. In fact some ofthe exhibits are common. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the learned Counsel for the second Defendant.2. The Plaintiff's case is as follows:--The Plaintiff is Union Bank of India, which is a nationalised bank. The Defendant No. 1 is a...
Rahul Priyadarshi Doctor Vs. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom424; (1996)98BOMLR5; 1996(2)MhLj697
1. Heard Mr. Vashi.2. Two-fold contentions has been raisedby Mr. Vashi -- (i) that once the suit has beenfiled by the Plaintiff student challenging theevaluation of the answer-book, the court hadample power under Order 26 of the Code ofCivil Procedure for appointment of commissioner and inspection of answer-books by thePlaintiff and in the alternative fay the court;(ii) that once the answer-books have beenexamined, evaluated and assessed by theboard examinee is entitled to return of theanswer-books because he is author of thatanswer-book and also owner thereof and,therefore, the refusal to grant ad interim-reliefby the trial court pending notice of motionwas not justified.3. Though the arguments on its face appear to be attractive but oh close scrutiny, none of the two arguments has any substance and merit.4. Rules 102 104 of the Maharashtra State Higher Secondary Board/Regulations 1977 came up for consideration before the Apex Court in : [1985]1SCR29 Maharashtra State Board of Seconda...
Valliappa Harijan Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)215; 1997CriLJ1484
Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No. 26/92 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge (B), South Goa, Margao. He was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 342, 376, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years under Section 376, I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 1 year. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years under Section 506, I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months. The accused was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year under Section 342, I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months. All these sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The charges against the appellant was that on or about the 26th February, 1991 at 14.30 hours near the jungle area in Zuarinagar he wrongfully confined the complainant one Smt. Kallamma Jaganath Badigar, gave a tooth bite on her and had sexual inte...
Vijaysing S/O Shankarrao Deshmukh, Through the Power of Attorney Holde ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR488
R.G. Deshpand, J.1. The present proceedings relate to the right of declaration of respondent No. 1 as an owner of Field Survey No. 1 admeasuring 15 acres 31 gunthas, situated at village Gour, Tq. Kallam District Osmanabad, under section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. In fact, the present writ petition was once heard and decided by this Court by its judgment dated 3rd August, 1990. However, because of the Review Application which was granted by this Court and which was filed at the instance of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the matter is reheard and is to be decided as per the order granting review passed earlier by this Court. Before proceeding with the merit of the present matter, it would be necessary to refer to certain developments occurred during the pendency of the present writ petition and that also would necessitate first to decided the Review Application No. 2941/90 which was filed at the instance of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 on 28th October, 1993. By th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »