Mumbai Court February 2003 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.
Khannubi W/O Salim Rayaliwale Vs. Salim S/O Rannu Rayaliwale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1488; 2003CriLJ2888; 2003(2)MhLj940
S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard Shri Tathod, learned Counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondent though served.2. The order dated 7-8-1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim and order dated 15-12-1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class by which both the Courts had allowed the application filed by the respondent husband under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure cancelling maintenance granted to the applicant wife at the rate of rupees two hundred per month are under challenge in this application.3. The brief facts are as under:The marriage of applicant wife was solemnised with the respondent husband in the year 1985 and soon after the marriage, she went to cohabit with him. She was being ill-treated since beginning. It is contended that on several times, she was mercilessly beaten by the respondent husband and his relatives against which she did not raise any voice due to helplessness. Out of wedlook, she gave birth to a male child, but she was bei...
Najmunbee W/O S.K. Sikandar Vs. S.K. Sikandar S.K. Rehman and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1484; 2003CriLJ3257; I(2004)DMC211; 2003(2)MhLj958
S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard Shri Khan, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Wankhede, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Ahirkar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.2. The judgment and order dated 19-1-1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Criminal Revision Application No. 51/1998 whereby he reversed the order of maintenance passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 21-8-1998 in miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 35/1997 is under challenge in this revision.3. The brief facts are required to be stated as under:The applicant wife filed application seeking maintenance for herself and minor child under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The respondent husband strongly resisted the claim of maintenance on the ground that he had given divorce to his wife as per provisions of Mohammedan law by pronouncing talaq at three times and copy of talaqnama was served on the wife...
Yashwant S/O Laxman Bhelave Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1506; 2003CriLJ2765; 2003(2)MhLj839
S.T. Kharche, J. 1. Rule is taken up for final hearing with consent of parties.2. Heard Shri Mardikar, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Kankale, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No. -1, and Shri Borkar, learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 2.3. This application is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the charge framed under Section 3(1)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act') in Special Case No. 37/1994 by the Special Judge.4. Brief facts are as under:The first information report is lodged by non-applicant No. 2 on 18-7-1993 at about 4.45 p.m. at Police Station, Amgaon for the offences punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(2) of SC/ST Act against the applicant on the allegation that latter committed the offence on 18-7-1993 at about 10 A. M. by going into the field of non-applicant No. 2 armed with sticks...
Narayan Kisanrao Samundre, Vs. the State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR554
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Both these Letters Patent Appeals arise from a common decision in Writ Petition Nos.5456 and 5481 of 1995 and the issues raised fall in a narrow compass.2. In L.P.A.No.10/1995, the appellants were the members of the Managing Committee of Osmanabad Zilla Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit and were served with the show cause notice dt.24.7.1995, informing them that they had suffered disqualification under Section 73FF(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ( the Act for short) for not having refunded the advance taken by them within a period of 30 days and they were asked to show cause as to why the order of disqualification could not be passed against them under Section 78 of the Act. They submitted explanation that the advance amount was repaid after a period of 30 days and before any notice directing them to refund the advance amount was issued to any of them and in any case the amount having been remitted before issuance of the show cause notice, there w...
In Re: Parke-davis (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: [2005]124CompCas531(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This petition has been filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act by the petitioners, i.e., Parke-Davis (India) Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has been filed for obtaining sanction of this court to the scheme of amalgamation of the petitioner-company, hereinafter referred to as the transferor company, with Pfizer Ltd., which also is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, hereinafter referred to as the transferee company, with effect from the appointed date. It is stated in the petition that with effect from the appointed date, all the debts, liabilities, duties and obligations of the transferor company shall stand transferred to the transferee company. It is further stated that all legal and other proceedings by or against the transferor company pending on the appointed date shall be continued and be enforced by or against the transferee company. It is further stated that all the employees of the transferor company who ar...
Neeraja Rajendranath Mishra Vs. the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corpora ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR481; 2003(4)BomCR49; 2003(2)MhLj491
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule. Mr. A.S. Rao, learned counsel, appearsand waive service of rule on behalf of respondentNos. 1 to 3. Mr. R.D. Rane, learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader, appears and waives service ofrule on behalf of respondent No.4. Mr. S.A. Ahmed,learned counsel, appears and waives service of ruleon behalf of respondents 5 to 13.2. In the facts and circumstances, the matteris taken up for final hearing today.3. This petition is filed by the petitioner foran appropriate writ, direction or order quashing andsetting aside the Resolution dated January 4, 2003(Exhibit D) purportedly passed by the KalyanDombivali Municipal Corporation School Board.Respondent No.1 herein.4. The petitioner was holding the post of ViceChairman of the first respondent-School Board. Itis the case of the petitioner that on December 20,2002, on confidence motion was sought to be movedagainst her, and notice to that effect was issued,which was received by the petitioner on the nextday, i.e., on December...
Smt. Rahima Abusaheb Munshi, Mehar Industries Vs. the State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)60; 2003BomCR(Cri)1492
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard Shri Kotwal and Shri Gadkari at length. Shri Kotwal, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the present petitioner has been charged for committing offence punishable under Section 465 of Indian Penal Code which provides for the sentence extending to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine and the co-accused has been charged for committing the offence under provisions of Section 477A of I.P.C. which provides for the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He submitted that the original complainant is staying at Canada and is not likely to come to India, because the partition suit which was filed by him claiming the partition from the present petitioner who happens to be his real sister has been dismissed for default He submitted further that the original complainant has not bothered anything for the said suit and therefore it is next to impossible that he would be coming for attending the prosecution in which the present petitioner ...
Deelip Bhikaji Sonawane Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1013; 2003CriLJ4008
S.S. Parkar, J.1. This petition is one more example of abuse of powers by the authorities. In this case it is the Asst. Commissioner of Police, who was appointed as Executive Magistrate by the Government of Maharashtra, who has by his absolutely illegal and unwarranted order put the citizen, who is a Science Graduate and Diploma Holder in Civil Engineering, behind the bars. The petition is filed in the following circumstances.2. In Nasik city on Gangapur Road there is a land bearing survey No. 684 which the owner wanted to develop and, therefore, he had given power of attorney to one Chandrakant Trimbak Rajebahaddar and the said power of attorney holder seems to have assigned the work of development to the petitioner. In the said property there were slums and, therefore, there was dispute between the occupiers of the land and the developer. In the month of January 1994 the occupants of the land had filed complaints which are registered as N.Cs. under Sections 143, 147 and 506 of IPC an...
Shri Balasaheb Raghunath Katad and ors. Vs. Sou Gayabai Balasaheb Kata ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)61; 2003BomCR(Cri)637; 2003CriLJ2343; II(2003)DMC97
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioners are assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order by which the learned Magistrate issued the process against the petitioners for the offences punishable under provisions of Sections 494 and 109 of Indian Penal Code.2. Miss Smita Mane submitted that the learned Magistrate should not have issued the process in view of provisions of Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Hindu marriage Act for convenience), because, according to Section 7, unless all necessary ceremonies are performed, there would not be a legal marriage between a Hindu man and a Hindu woman. She pointed out that the necessary allegations are lacking in the complaint. Miss Smita Mane submitted that on the contrary, the averments made in the complaint are to the effect that complainant after hearing Mangalastaka and slokas chanted, went to Kushavarta and saw gathering of persons and inferred that her husband was marrying another woman. In addition to ...
Popat Kashinath Bodke Vs. Kamalabai Popat Bodke,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)63; 2003BomCR(Cri)1122; II(2003)DMC193; 2003(2)MhLj608
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard both the Advocates at length.2. Shri Kankaria submitted that on 28/7/1989 both the petitioner and his wife in pursuance of settlement executed a deed, which has been titled as 'Pharkatnama'. Paragraph No. 3 of the said deed unequivocally declared that after the said deed they were not to have relations as husband and wife as they were divorcing each other by customary system. Shri Kankaria further submitted that by the said paragraph No. 3 wife Kamlabai Popat Bodke relinquished her right in context with maintenance and the property. Shri Naiknavare submitted that Kamalabai is entitled to get maintenance in view of Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for convenience) and she is entitled to file fresh application whenever she needs alimony. He submitted that the said document cannot be treated to be a legal document of divorce. He justified the order, which has been put to challenge by the petitioner by this writ petition....
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »