Mumbai Court October 2002 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.
Gangdas S/O Moujibhai Patel Vs. Harshvardhan S/O Balkrushna Bhadupotey ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR127; 2003(4)BomCR712; 2003(1)MhLj203
S.D. Gundewar, J.1. Heard finally at the stage of admission by the consent of the parties.2. The present Civil Revision Application is directed against the order dated 8-7-2002 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gondia in Regular Civil Suit No. 170/2000, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint came to be rejected.3. A few facts insofar as they are relevant for the disposal of the present Civil Revision Application are as under :The non-applicants/original plaintiffs have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 170/2000 against the applicant/original defendant for the possession, damages and mesne profits. It is averred by the plaintiffs that they are the owners of land bearing Nazul Plot No. 23/1, Sheet No. 7, situated at Seth Pratap Ward, Gondia and the defendant is in occupation of a total area admeasuring 6375 sq. ft. out of the said land (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises') as th...
Sahebrao D. Labde Vs. Jaising Shivaji Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR614; 2003(1)MhLj358
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule. Mr. C. J. Sawant appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 in all writ petitions. Mr. P. Janardhanan, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 3473 of 2002 and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in Writ Petition No. 3474 of 2002. Mr. K.K. Singhvi appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition Nos. 3474 of 2002 and 3501 of 2002. We have taken up all the matters for final hearing with the consent of all parties.2. All these three petitions are filed against an order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, on 18th June, 2002 in Original Application No. 453 of 2002. By the said order, the Tribunal was pleased to quash and set aside an order of transfer passed against Jaising Shivaji Patil, respondent No. 1 in the present group of petitions.3. To appreciate the controversy raised in the petitions, few relevant fact...
Narayan S/O Vithal Ambekar Vs. Plantation Officer and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1060; 2003(4)BomCR711; 2003(1)MhLj722
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Shri Saboo, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. Dangre, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.2. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. This Court by its judgment dated June 20, 2001 in Writ Petition No. 3352/2000 remanded the matter to the Industrial Court, Yavatmal specifically directing the learned Member of the Industrial Court to decide the same afresh since no reasons were assigned for confirming the order passed by the Labour Court by the Industrial Court. The learned Member of the Industrial Court since did not advance any reasons for upholding the Judgment and order passed by the Labour Court which was under challenged before the Industrial Court, this Court specifically observed that this was no Judgment in the eye of law. This clearly means that though the learned Member of the Industrial Court by its Judgment and Order dated March 14, 2002 upheld the order of the Labour Court, ...
Vijaykumar S/O Jamnadas Wadera and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2002
Reported in: (2003)2BOMLR95; 2003(1)MhLj952
J.A. Patil, J.1. The original applicants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10 have filed this Revision Application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code and challenged the order dated 28-4-1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, in Criminal Revision Application No. 17 of 1989, setting aside the order dated 7-2-1989 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (for short S.D.M.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 86 of 1987. The relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of this revision application may be stated, in brief, as under :The original non-applicant M/s Ramchand Bhagirath is a proprietary concern of Bhagirath Ramchand Agrawal (since deceased). He was a commission agent in a Kirana goods and was also a wholesale dealer in dry chillies. In Ansari Ward of Gondia city, he had a godown in a double storeyed building known as Vishnu Kunj where he used to store large quantity of chillies. The applicants are residents of Ansari Ward, which is mainly residentia...
Weiler International Electronics Private Ltd. Vs. Punita Velu Somasund ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR577; 2003(1)ARBLR553(Bom); 2003(3)BomCR59; (2003)1BOMLR857; (2003)IILLJ197Bom; 2003(1)MhLj398
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This appeal is filed against an order passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, on 29th September, 2001, in an application below Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 539 of 2001.2. The appellant was the original plaintiff and the respondent was the original defendant. The case of the plaintiff was that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant under which the defendant was employed by the plaintiff for designing development and screening work. The defendant after some time was relieved from services as per Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 12th May, 2001. The plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 539 of 2001 in the Court of the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from divulging information and material pertaining to thick film hybrid micro circuits as per secrecy clause of the contract. It was plaintiffs case that since the defendant left the services by submit...
Manohar Vaman Raikar Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR365
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner joined the employment, of respondent No. 2 Corporation i.e. the State Warehousing Corporation. Pune, in1966. While he was working as Assistant Storage Superintendent (Class II) he wasplaced under suspension by order dated 8.2.1990. He was served with the charge-sheet on 19.6.1990 levelling in all 5 charges against him. He submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory and therefore, alongwith three other officers namely ; S/Shri S.A. Wakchaure (Store-keeper). N.M. Bhalerao (Store-keeper) and B.R. Sonwane (Store-keeper), he was proceeded against and a departmental inquiry was ordered into the charges levelled against him. He alongwith other delinquent employees participated in the said inquiry and finally the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 11.9.1992. He was issued a show-cause notice on 6.4.1993 and alongwith the same, a copy of the report of Enquiry Officer was also forwarded to the petitioner. He replied to the second show-cause noti...
Ramchandra Mangalya Kadu Vs. Madhukar Chamar Churi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR503; 2003(1)MhLj506
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Bombay dated October 13, 1989, in Case No. Ten.A. 196 of 1989. Briefly stated the land in question is bearing Survey No. 339 Hissa No. 1, admeasuring 1 acre 8 gunthas and 12 annas situate at Village Badapokharan in Dahanu Taluka of District Thane. This land originally belonged to one Keshav Gokulya Raut, since deceased. The said Keshav Raut sold the land in question in favour of the petitioner herein by registered sale deed on 24-12-1965. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of execution of the sale deed the petitioner was put in possession of the suit land. However, the respondent No. 1 who claims that he was tenant in respect of the suit land since prior to 1957, for the first time, on September 12, 1975 moved an application purported to be under Section 84C of The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 contending th...
Chandrasekhar Narayan Tambe Vs. Dhondusa Sitaram Pawar Since Deceased ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR446; 2003(2)BomCR592; (2003)1BOMLR916; 2002(1)MhLj689
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Judge, Satara, dated July 27, 1990 in Regular Civil appeal No. 84 of 1986. The subject matter of the present petition is a garage of one Khan out of property situate at CTS No. 90, Gurwar Peth, Satara. It is not in dispute that the said property was originally owned by the respondent Plaintiff. However, the said property was purchased by one K. S. D. Shanbag on 27-4-1966, pursuant to the court auction. The name of said Shanbag came to be entered in City Survey Records in respect of the suit property as owner. This fact is not in dispute. However, the respondent claims that the property was purchased in the name of Shanbag by him. It is on this premise the respondent asserts that he continued to be in possession and ownership of the suit property and that inducted the petitioner as his tenant in the demised premises on monthly rent bas...
In Re: Lkp Merchant Financing Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: [2003]42SCL863(Bom)
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for winding-up of the respondent company under Section 439 read with Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 and for appointment of Official Liquidator as provided thereunder. The petitioner company has sought for the aforesaid directions alleging failure on the part of the company to pay its alleged debt to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 52,22,114.2. From the averments in the petition, it appears that the petitioner-company had deposited a sum of Rs. 5 crores with the respondent-company in the portfolio management scheme. The petitioner-company had also paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs towards service charges. It is an admitted position that the respondent-company refunded a sum of Rs. 2 crores and requested the petitioners to continue the said portfolio deposit in respect of the balance amount of Rs. 3 crores for a further period of one year. The said relationship between the two began in February 1993 and the refund of Rs. 2 crores was...
Shankar S/O Narayan Kolhe Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MhLj633
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner claims that he had participated in the Indian Freedom Movement and was arrested by the police under Rules 56(1) and 56(4) of the Defence of India Rules. He was convicted by the learned Magistrate at Dharangaon and was sentenced to suffer F. I. for one year. He was confined in Dhule District Prison from 18th August, 1942 to 12thJanuary, 1943 and was released before completion of the sentence period of one year unconditionally and perhaps on account of the general amnesty granted by the Government of India then. In support of these contentions he relied upon the certificate dated 30th July, 1962 issued by the Superintendent of Dhule District Prison.2. On 31st July, 1978 he submitted an application for freedom fighters pension under the 1972 scheme framed by the Government of India. He had also submitted such an application to the respondent No. 2 as well. By order dated 11th May, 1983 he was awarded the pensionary benefits by the Government of Maharas...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »