Mumbai Court September 1999 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.
Miss Cian D'Souza Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR630; 2000BomCR(Cri)630; 2000(1)MhLj672
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. By impugned order dated 29-9-98, which is subject matter of challenge in this revision, charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioner and another accused Rajkumar Halwai under sections 363, 366, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120-B, read with 109 I.P.C. In this revision, the challenge is restricted only to the order of framing of charge under section 366 I.P.C.2. Learned Advocate Shri M.S. Joshi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged before me that in respect of a marriage which took place between the petitioner and one Majdoline Habib, (hereinafter, referred to as 'the said girl') no charge could be ordered to be framed under section 366 I.P.C. since both of them belong to same sex. Besides this, it was also urged by him, after placing reliance on S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, : 1965CriLJ33 ; State of Kerala v. Rajayyan and others, ; and Gourish s/o. Shamba Haldankaa v. State of Goa, 1997 All.M.R. (Cri.) 629 that the said Majdoline Habib had accompanied ...
Priyamvada Sharad Limaye Vs. Sharad Madhukar Limaye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR172; I(2000)DMC134
N.J. Pandya, J.1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment given in Petition No. A 1685 of 1993 of the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The learned Judge by his Judgment and order dated 2nd May, 1997 has disbelieved the case of the cruelty put forth by the petitioner - husband but has accepted the case of desertion on the part of the respondent - wife and, therefore, the wife has challenged the decree of divorce. 2. The facts are very narrow compass. The appellant and the respondent got married with each other on 20th May, 1990 and they had hardly stayed together. They had separated on 24th May, 1999.3. The fact of having left the matrimonial home by the wife is admitted. The question is whether the desertion continued till the filing of the petition which happened on 8th October, 1993.4. Soon after her leaving the matrimonial home, on 27th May, 1991, the respondent-husband had got a Advocate's letter issued on the appellant/wife which she initially denied to have received but eventually ...
Shri Narayan Biraman Shindore Vs. Sau. Shantabai Laxman Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR855
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of original defendant impugning the judgment and decree passed by the IIIrd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik on 19.10.98.2. Sou. Shantabai Laxman Shinde (respondent herein and for short 'plaintiff hereinafter) filed the suit against Shri Narayan Biraman Shindore (appellant herein and for short 'defendant') for specific performance of the contract. The plaintiff set up the case in the plaint that Survey No. 22 admeasuring 2 acres located at Gangapur, is owned by the defendant which is adjacent to Survey No. 30/2 owned by plaintiff. On 27.7.77, the defendant agreed to sell the land comprising of Survey No. 22 for a consideration of Rs. 34,000/-, at the rate of Rs. 17,000/- per acre to the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in cash to the defendant towards part consideration of the agreement. According to the terms of the contract, the sale deed was to be get executed by the month of April, 1984 and the remain...
Mohd. Zafar S/O Mohd. Sikandar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR614
J.N. Patel, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.8.1991 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 382/91 in which the appellant came to be convicted for having committed offence under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. It was the prosecution's case that on 9.11.91 P.S.I. Sakharkar along with other Police Officers of the Crime Branch, N.D.P.S. Cell, Nagpur left for patrolling duty in order to conduct raid in respect of gard, charas and other narcotic substances. In front of Timki Police Chowki they received information through informant that a person named Mohd. Zafar Mohd. Sikandar i.e. accused was selling gard (Heroin) to specific customers at Mominpura Masumshaha Takiya in front of Hafiz Bakery and that he was carrying gard packets with him. Therefore, on receiving such ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›