Mumbai Court February 1997 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.
Mr. Sanjeev Vaze Vs. Dr. Kunda Vaikunth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR750
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. The respondent/plaintiff, in this case, stood surety for the present appellant/defendant to the Bank in America in order to enable the appellant/defendant to purchase a car. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff repaid the loan of the Bank advanced to the appellant/defendant as per the direction and instruction given by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit, being Special Civil Suit No. of 1989 for recovery of due from the defendant of the value of Rs. 58,000/- at the time of filing the suit. The Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the appellant/defendant to pay an amount of Rs. 32,027/- from 10.11.1985 till realisation of the decretal amount. It is this Judgment and decree dated 21.7.1993 passed by the III Jt Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Pune in Special Suit No of 1989 which is the subject matter of an appeal, being First Appeal No. 259 of 1994 filed by the present appellant/defendant.2. The aforesaid Judgment and d...
Geeta Yogesh Mehta Vs. Yogesh Jethalal Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: I(1998)DMC546
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. This Family Court Appeal is filed by the appellant-wife against the judgment and decree dated 30th November, 1994 passed by the Family Court at Bombay, in Petition No. A-994 of 1990.2. Respondent-husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It was contended by the respondent-husband that he got married with the appellant-wife oil 20th December, 1985 according to Hindu Vedic rites. After the marriage, both the appellant and the respondent resided at Sion, Bombay, alongwith his family consisting of his brother and father. It is the case of the respondent-husband that since the inception of the marriage, the appellant-wife was keeping indifferent health. When he requested her to get herself examined by doctor, she refused to do so. However, the respondent-husband could not even consummate the marriage with the appellant-wife because she deliberately avoided sexual relations with him ...
Madanlal Uttamchand Desarda Vs. Jugalkishor Shankarlal Bharuka and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR748
V.K. Barde, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.2. The applicant is admittedly the owner of municipal house No. 3-6-17, City Survey No. 6200, situated at Sarafa, Aurangabad, and the respondent No. 1 -Jugalkishor is a tenant in one shop premises on ground floor from this building. The respondent No. 2 Municipal Corporation issued notice dated 13-9-1995 to the respondent No. 1 and called upon the respondent to pull down the unauthorised construction carried out by the respondent No. 1 in the premises which was leased to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed Regular Civil Suit No. 841/1995 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad, and at present, the suit is pending in the Court of IXth Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Aurangabad. The respondent No. 1 raised various grounds in the suit and prayed for perpetual injunction against the Municipal Corporation, that the Municipal Corporation be prevented from pulling down the portion of the building as ment...
Smt. Laxmibai Narayan Patil and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Bom212; 1997(3)BomCR229; (1997)2BOMLR70; 1997(2)MhLj353
ORDERDr. B. P. Saraf, J.1. The petitioners are aggieved by the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Raigad, Alibag (Respondent No.2), where by the application of the petitioners for reference to Court under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984(the 'Act') was dismissed on the ground that it had not been made within six weeks of the receipt of the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. 2. The land of the petitioners was acquired by the respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The award was made under Section 11 of the Act on 8th August, 1989. The petitioners were not present or represented before the Special Land Acquisition officer at the time he made his award. Thereafter, the petitioners were served with a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act on 22nd August 1989. The petitioners applied for reference under Section 18(1) of the Act on 5th January, 1990, However, the said application having not been made within six weeks of the receipt of ...
Sou. Sudha Alias Ranjana R. Patil Vs. Rajkumar Deoganda Patil and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3140
ORDER1. Heard Shri A. P. Mundergi, Advocate for the petitioner; and Shri Naik for respondent No. 1. 2. The petition is filed by the wife against the order of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge Kolhapur dated 17-2-1995 by which the revision filed by the respondent-husband was allowed and order of the Magistrate dated 15-10-1994 granting maintenance of Rs. 150/- to the petitioner wife was set aside. 3. The Judicial Magistrate F.C. has accepted the case of the wife and granted maintenance at Rs. 150/- per month from 5-1-1993. The Additional Sessions Judge set aside this order only on the ground that respondent was admittedly a blind person and was not able bodily and as such was not capable of maintaining his wife and children. 4. On the fact of it, this finding is wrong because S. 125 of Cr.P.C. nowhere lays down that only an able bodied husband will be bound to maintain his wife. Section 125 speaks of the inability of the wife to maintain herself and does not speak about the physical ca...
Surya Rau V. V., E.D. Nocil and Others Vs. Surendra Ramkrishna Tendulk ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)505; (1998)ILLJ629Bom; 1998(3)MhLj281
1. These petitions are being disposed of by a common Judgment as common questions of law arise in all these matters. 2. The petitioner in each of the petitions is the Executive Director of the National Organic Chemical Industries Limited (for short NOCIL). In the complaint he is described as the occupier of the factory. The Respondent No. 1 has filed complaints which are pending against the petitioner in the Court of the 1st Judicial Magistrate, Thane. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 18(1), 18(3), 18(2), 19(4) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 read with Rules 27(1), 27(2), 22 and 28 of the Maharashtra Minimum Wages Rules, 1963. Apart from the petitioner the Contractor was also joined as an accused. 3. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that NOCIL had violated the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as also the provisions of the Maharashtra Minimum Wages Rules, 1953 by not maintaining Registers in respect of the employees engaged through cont...
Sai Sudha @ Ranjana R. Patil Vs. Shri Rajkumar Deoganda Patil and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)33; II(1998)DMC417; 1997(2)MhLj250
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. A.P Mundargi, Advocate for the petitioner. Nobody is present for respondent No. 12. The petition is filed by the wife against the order of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur dt. 17-2-1995 by which the Revision filed by the respondent-husband was allowed and order of the Magistrate dt. 15-10-94 granting maintenance of Rs. 150/ - to the petitioner wife was set-aside.2. Mr. Mundargi argued the matter at 3 O'clock and waited for Mr. Naik to come in the Court but till 4 O'clock nobody appeared for respondent No. 1 and, therefore, i am passing this order on merits.3. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class has accepted the case of the wife and granted maintenance at Rs. 150/- per month from 5-1-1993.The Additional Sessions Judge set-aside this order only on the ground that respondent was admittedly a blind person and was not able bodily and as such was not capable of maintaining his wife and children.4. On the face of it this finding is wrong becaus...
Mangal Bhikaji Nagpase Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR91a
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.1. The question raised in this second appeal is as to whether the interpleader suit filed by the original plaintiff was tenable and further whether in that suit, the plaintiff could challenge the title of his original landlord and derivative title of the respondent No. 2 Bhopalsingh Khatod.2. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff Mangal Bhikaji Nagpase (appellant herein) under Section 58 and Order 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in respect of plot No. 127/3, 129/4, sheet No. 15, Block No. 40, Nazul Ward Bhangapeth, Chandrapur. In that suit, original defendant No. 2 Bhopalsingh Khatod (respondent No. 2 herein) filed two applications, being Exhibit 20 and Exhibit 28, and the plaintiff had filed an application for amendment of the plant vide Exhibit 32. The Trial Court held on the applications made by respondent No. 2 that there was no cause of action in favour of the appellant/plaintiff to file the suit and the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›