Mumbai Court July 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.
Nehru Jankalyan Bahu-uddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha and anr. Vs. Mohan Sur ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR785; (2002)4BOMLR37; 2003(1)MhLj425
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Haq, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, and Shri Jichkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 2.2. The petition is directed against the order dated 11-9-1998 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. SEN/138/1995 whereby appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 employee was allowed.3. Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner Sanstha runs various educational Institutions, one of which is Nehru Vidyalaya and Junior College. The respondent No. 1 was appointed on 13-12-1990 as part time Lecturer in the Junior College. On 1-7-1991 two posts, of Lecturer in Commerce Faculty were sanctioned in the Junior College. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as a part time Lecturer on clock hour basis. At the relevant time, the petitioner was holding qualification, i.e. M. Com., M.A. in Sociology and B.Ed. The said appointment was till the end of academic ...
Mrs. R.E. Fanibunda Vs. Nicholas of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR967
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Decree dated 16th July, 1996 passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No. 438 of 1990 in R.A.E. Suit No. 555/2438 of 1977. The premises in question is situated on the ground floor being Flat No. 1 and the Garage No. 1 in the basement in the building known as 'Sorrento' at Mount Pleasant Road, Mumbai. The Respondent No. 1 was inducted as tenant in the said premises, pursuant to Lease Agreement dated 1st November, 1966 by the erstwhile landlord of the suit premises. The suit premises were purchased by the Petitioner in the year 1974. At that time, the Petitioner was unmarried. It is not in dispute that tenancy was attorned in favour of the Petitioner after she purchased the suit property. The Petitioner got married to Dr. Fanibunda in the year 1975. After marriage, the Petitioner started living with her husband in Amarchand Mansion, 16, Madam Cama Road, ...
Motiram Maroti Dhule Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)384; (2002)4BOMLR323; 2002(3)MhLj882
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had examined ten witnesses in support of the charge. The trial Court accepted the eye witness account of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and after rejecting the plea of insanity raised by the appellant, found him guilty of the charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The period of detention undergone by him in connection with the offence was ordered to be set off in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant challenges the said conviction and sentence in this appeal.2. Though the learned Advocate for the appellant assailed the evidence of the eye witnesses yet the substantial arguments were advanced before us in connection with the plea of insanity taken by the appellant which according to the learned Advocate for the appellant had been wrongly rejected even though there was an...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deorao S/O Bhayyaji Patne and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ317; 2003(1)ALLMR99; 2003(2)BomCR235; (2002)4BOMLR33; 2002(4)MhLj941
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This First Appeal is directed against an order dated 25-3-1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, on an application for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal has allowed the application for compensation and has directed the Insurance Company, which is in Appeal before this Court, to pay to the claimants an amount of Rs. 25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application until the realization of the amount. Consequential directions have been issued as regards the payment of l/7th of the amount deposited to each of the claimants.2. Briefly stated, the facts relating to the case are that respondents 1 to 7 filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of no-fault liability for the death of one Ranjana Deorao Patne on 9-12-1989 in the course of an accident with a truck bearing registration No. MWY 2682 belongin...
Jayesh H. Pandya Vs. Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR316
D.G. Karnik, J. 1. This Chamber Summons has been taken out at the instance of the defendant No. 1 in Civil Suit No. 2812 of 2001. The parties are hereinafter referred to by their status in the suit. The brief facts may be stated thus: 2. The plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 are the partners of a firm known as 'Hitali Construction Company' (hereinafter referred to as 'firm'). The plaintiff filed the suit No. 2812 of 2001 in this Court for a declaration that the firm stood dissolved with effect from the date of the filing of the suit and in the alternative for a dissolution of the firm. In the said suit, the plaintiff also prayed for an order and decree that the accounts of the suit firm be taken, the assets and properties of the firm be sold and realised and after meeting the liabilities the amount so realised should be paid to the partners according to their respective shares in the partnership firm. 3. In the said suit, the plaintiff also took out a Notice of Motion No. ...
Suryabhan S/O Ranuba Wagh Vs. Shobha Bhimrao Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1070; (2003)1BOMLR555; 2003(1)MhLj512
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard Advocate Shri A.M. Dabir h/f Advocate Shri L.R. Pathak for revision petitioner. Sole respondent, although served with the notice and Rule notice, is absent.2. The revision petition challenges order passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Aurangabad, on 18-7-1995 in Regular Civil Suit No. 904/1994 on the file of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad. One Sonabai had filed RCS No. 436/1991 seeking injunction against present petitioner performing another marriage. However, that suit was dismissed, although said Sonabai claimed to be wife of present petitioner. Thereafter, present respondent, who is younger sister of Sonabai, in the year 1992 filed an application under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for maintenance against present petitioner. It is the contention of petitioner that even respondent is not his wife. He had no alternative, but to file a suit for declaration that respondent is not his wife and, therefore, RCS No. 904/1994 was ...
Jamil Fihmed @ Sadalalu Abdul Jamil Qf Ureshi @ Jamil Mohd. Abdul Maji ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)128
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Smt. Pratibha Patil for the appellant and Shri Shringarpure, A.P.P. for the prosecution. Both of them have been heard at length.2. The appellant is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 1993,wherein the appellant Jamil Ahmed @ Sadalalu Abdul Jalil Quereshi @ Jamil Mohd. Abdul Majid Quereshi has been convicted for the offences punishable under provisions of (1) Section 224 r/w Section 114 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, (2) under Section 307 r/w Section 114 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days, (3) Section 333 r/w Section 113 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further simple imp...
Fateh Mohamad Gulmohammed Sayed Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3586
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. These appeals are being decided by common judgment as they arise from Sessions Case No. 886 of 1995. Smt. Latika Khemani is appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 1999. Shri Naveen Chomal is appearing for appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 2000 and Shri Zakir Husain is appearing for appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 621 of 1999. They have been heard at length in context with the evidence on record, so also Shri Shringarpure, A.P.P. appearing for the prosecution.2. The appellants are assailing the correctness, propriety, and legality of the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No. 886/1995 whereby the learned Judge convicted them for the offences punishable under Section 392 r/w Sections 397 and 34. Section 457 and Section 506(II) of I.P.C. He sentenced them as follows:For offence punishable under Section 392 r/w Sections 397 and 34 of Indian Penal code the appellants...
Shirish P. Shah (Dr.) Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR468; 2003(2)BomCR402
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is seeking twin reliefs in the present petition. He has challenged the order dated 25-4-1994 terminating his services as Hon. Medical Officer of the respondent No. 1 Corporation. At the same time he is also seeking to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 6 as the Head of the Department of Chest Medicine at Nair Hospital. According to him, he was unlawfully terminated from the post of Head of the Department which he held as the Acting Head and that the respondent No. 6 was being appointed in his place though she was not qualified and eligible to be appointed for that post.2. It appears that initially the petitioner had filed two separate petitions for the aforesaid two independent reliefs. Subsequently it appears that as suggested by this Court (Kapadia, J.) the companion Petition No. 2630 of 1991 wherein he had challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 6 as the Head of the Department in his place was withdrawn and the contentions and praye...
Jamil Ahmed Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3663
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Smt. Pratibha Patil for the appellant and Shri Shringarpure, A.P.P. for the prosecution. Both of them have been heard at length with reference to the evidence on record.2. The appellant is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 1197 of 1992 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 224, 332 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo following term of sentences. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 224 of Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »