Mumbai Court August 1997 Judgments
Jagannath Sambhaji Karche Vs. Chandu Thaku Kambale and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR770; 1998(1)BomCR639
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J. 1. The respondents were owners of the land S. No. 2/5 admeasuring 5 acres 12 gunthas situate at village Khamgaon, being Mahar Watan land of Inam Class VI-B under the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'Watans Abolition Act'. The Inam under dispute came to be abolished and resumed by the Slate with a effect from the appointed day viz. 1st August, 1958. The said lands were liable to be regranted to the authorised holder unless the same were found liable to be regranted to the authorised holder under section 6 or unauthorised holder under section 9 of the Watans Abolition Act, The said land came to be regranted to the respondents under the Watans Abolition Act on 25th May, 1963. On 10th October, 1972 the respondents entered into an agreement to sell the lands to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 22,000/-. A sum of Rs. 11,000/- out of the total amount of Rs. 22,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the respondents under a receipt...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatrao S/O Ramchandra Sugandhi Vs. Ladwani Samast Panch Mandal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR5; 1998(2)BomCR858
ORDERR.G. Deshpande, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Taken up with the consent of parties for hearing.2. In the present revision application, the applicant is challenging the order dated 4-9-1995 passed below Exh. 69 in Regular Civil Suit No. 113/1987, whereby application Exh. 69 is rejected by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar. It would be appropriate to mention at this stage itself that the point which the Court was to decide by way of this application Exh. 69 was regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to try the very suit itself.3. The present petitioner, who happened to be the original defendant was facing, Regular Civil Suit No. 113/87 which was initiated by the respondent/plaintiff in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar, for declaration that the panchmandal - the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit property by virtue of sale-deed, dated 5-5-1977 and further declaration that the registered document dated 31-10-1983 was null ...
Tag this Judgment!Atmaram S/O Kanderao Singhan and Another Vs. Sahebrao S/O Udhavrao Kam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR180
ORDERR.G. Deshpande: J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.2. Atmaram the original plaintiff has come up before this Court as a revisionistchallenging the order dated 27.4.1992 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division,Beed, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 3/90, whereby the learned Judge of the trial Court rejected the application filed by the present petitioner for restoration of the Restoration Petition No. 92/85. The present revision appear to have been raised on a very triable ground that the original suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 165/83 which was filed by the present petitioner was dismissed in default on 1.10.1985 and an application for restoration of the same is also dismissed in default.3. It is evident from the record that after the suit was dismissed in default, the petitioner filed Restoration Application No. 92/85 which also came to be dismissed in default on 18.11.1989. After the dismissal of that Restoration Application No. 92/85, Miscellaneous Civil Application...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimrao Sambhaji Linge and Others Vs. Hanumant Anandrao Pawalkar and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR193; 1998(3)BomCR298; 1997(3)MhLj769
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 5th October, 1995 passed by the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Pandharpur which decided the issue as to whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide a suit wherein the prayer for permanent injunction has been prayed for in respect of some acts done by the respondents herein of interfering with the free flow of water in the canal. The Court answered the issue in the affirmative.2. It was contended that in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Irrigation Act, 1976 the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction, Learned Counsel contends that in so far as the canal is concerned, there is a specific statute viz. Maharashtra Irrigation Act, 1976 which deals with the flow of water in the canal and all other incidental issues. It is pointed out that in terms of section 42 of the Maharashtra Irrigation Act in an event a dispute arises, such dispute has to be decided by a Canal Officer in terms of the said provisio...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Nazir Ahmed Abdul Hamid Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR73
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel; Ms. Mane for the petitioner and Mr. Bagwe, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ ofHabeas Corpus seeking to challenge the order of preventive detention passed on11th November, 1996 (Annexure 'A' page 18) against the petitioner-detenu. The saidorder has been passed by the 2nd respondent-detaining authority- namely, PrincipalSecretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) in exercise of his powers under section 3(1) of the Conservation of ForeignExchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSAAct'). The Order of Detention has been passed on recording the satisfaction withrespect to the detenu that with a view to preventing him in future from smugglinggoods, it was necessary to detain him in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. Along wi...
Tag this Judgment!Suman Yadav Gayasamandir and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)275
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. By the impugned judgment the Additional Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, found both the appellants guilty for offence under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and each were convicted to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 6 months. They were also convicted of the offence punishable under section 201 read with 511 and 34 I.P.C. but no separate sentence was passed.Accused No. 1 filed Criminal Appeal No. 556/92 and accused No. 2 filed Criminal Appeal No. 193/93. Mrs. Saxena, Counsel who filed appeal on behalf of accused No. 1 has not appeared and argued before us. However, Mrs. Kamath, appointed by the State for accused NO. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 193/92 has appeared and argued the case for both the accused. Since both the appeals arise out of a single judgment of the trial Court, we have heard and disposed of the above two appeals by this common judgment.2. The charge agai...
Tag this Judgment!Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh Vs. M/S. Khatau Makanji Spg. and Wvg. Co. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR283
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. On 6-5-1997, this Court while modifying the earlier order dated 5-5-1997 directed M/s. Khatau Makanji Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd., ('the Company') to make payment of salary to its workers for February 1977 on or before 20-5-1997.2. The matter came before me on 9-6-1997 and Ms. Buch, the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the order dated 6-5-1997 has not been complied with by the company. On that date, Mr. K.V. Yakkundi, the learned Counsel appeared for the company and did not dispute the fact of non-compliance of the order dated 6-5-97 by the company, He admitted that the payment to the workers towards salary for February 1997 was not made till that date. The said non-compliance on the part of the company was indeed serious. At that time Mr. Yakkundi, the learned Counsel appearing for the company prayed for short time to file affidavit setting out the reasons for not complying the order dated 6-5-97. As requested by Mr. Yakkundi, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bapusaheb Shantappa Shete, Since Deceased by His Legal Representatives ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR655
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This writ petition challenges the orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 313 of 1981 dated 20th Jan. 1983 confirming the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Shahuwadi Division, Kolhapur in Tenancy Appeal No. 21 of 1977 and 32 of 1977 dated 17th August, 1981 in turn confirming the order passed by the Aval Karkun, Panhala in Tenancy Case No. 1 of 1976 dated 31st December, 1976. It is prayed that the said orders be quashed and set aside and the petitioners' application for fixation of standard rent be granted.2. The dispute relates to land bearing Block No. 199, Original Survey No. 57 admeasuring 9 hectares 67 gunthas and assessed at Rs. 6.56 and Block No. 181 which comprises of Original Survey No. 53/13 and 56/1. The aforesaid lands were situated in village Akurde, Tal. Panhala, Dist. Kolhapur, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'. The respondents are admittedly the tenants of the suit land. The deceased Bapusaheb ...
Tag this Judgment!Trilokchand Bansilal Pande Vs. Syed TamiguddIn S/O Syed HafizuddIn Sin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR840; 1998(3)BomCR176
ORDERR.G. Deshpande, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. Heard Shri A.M. Kasliwal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.V. Gangapurwala, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1(i) to 1(v).3. By order dated 10-1-1995 passed by this Court, it appears that since no steps are taken by the petitioner to serve the respondent No. 2, the matter appears to have stood dismissed for want of prosecution, as against him.4. One Syed Tameezuddin filed Case No. 89/ARC/26 before the Rent Controller, Aurangabad for eviction of the defendant Talukchand Kasturchand Pande, under section 15(3)(a)(iv) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction & Lease) Control Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the purposes of brevity). The property from which the eviction was sought, is shown as Shop No. 2 and 3 of Municipal House No. 4.6.77 situated at New Mondha, Aurangabad. It appears that the suit summons of the above-said...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ratnabai W/O Yadav Chauhan Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR22; 1998(2)BomCR853
ORDERN.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Elections to the Village Panchayat, Sidhanath Wadgaon took place sometime in the year 1995 and a meeting of the newly elected Village Panchayat members was called on 3-9-1995 for electing Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of the said Village Panchayat under Rule 2(a) of The Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964. Office of the Sarpanch of village Sidhanath Wadgaon was reserved for women (general). Petitioner filed a nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of this village panchayat but her nomination paper came to be rejected by the Returning Officer since there was no signature of the proposer on the said nomination form. This fact is not in dispute. Since there was no nomination form filed by any other candidate, the post of the Sarpanch was kept vacant and the meeting proceeded for election of Upa-sarpanch Shri Ransingh Sandusingh Bilwad was elected for the post of Upa-sarpanch. This petition challenges rejection of the nomi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »