Mumbai Court June 2004 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.
S.A. Modi Vs. Mrs. T.A. Rana and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Bom353; 2004(4)BomCR517; 2004(3)MhLj821
R.M. Lodha, J.1. One Bomanji Dorabji Kumana is said to have executed his last Will and testament on 19th June, 1975. The testator died at Bombay on 11th August, 1978. Rustom D. Kumana and Gool D. Kumana who were the surviving executor and executrix applied for grant of probate before this Court and the probate was granted on 23rd October, 1981. Beneficiaries under the said Will are the present respondents. The present appellant who claims to be one of the legal heirs of the testator and who was not issued the citation of probate proceedings applied for revocation of probate granted on 23rd October, 1981 by filing petition under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before this Court. Initially, in the petition for revocation of probate, the present appellant only impleaded the first respondent but thereafter under the order of the Court, all the surviving beneficiaries under the Will dated 19th June, 1975 were impleaded. The impleaded beneficiaries contested the petition for r...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Arun Umaji Bansode
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3706
R.S. Mohite, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 19-2-1991, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (A.C.), Pune in Criminal Case No. 1296 of 1986.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-A. That the complainant Vinayak Shankar Jadhav was the Superintendent at Sadhana High School, Hadapsar, Pune. On 15-2-1986 he and his brother-in-law Chandrakant Raoji More and two staff members of his school by name Dattatray Sarvottam Kapare and Mohan Anantrao Yadav decided to see a move at Rahul theatre. The complainant and his brother-in-law purchased tickets of the show of 4.00 p.m. and were waiting in the compound of Rahul theatre for the staff members Kapare and Yadav. While they were waiting, the audience went inside the theatre. The complainant was having tickets in his hand and at that he was approached by two police officers who were under impression that the complainant was indulging in black-marketing of th...
Ajay Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC19; 2004CriLJ3648; 2004(4)MhLj132
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Konde-Deshmukh, learned A.P.P for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 9-10-2003 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting the discharge application dated 14-7-2003 filed by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') since the two Cheques of Rs. 27 lacs issued by the petitioner had been returned by the petitioner's bank unpaid. The only contention raised by Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the Act was hopelessly time barred inasmuch as it was not filed within the time stipulated under the provisions of th...
Kokila Manohar Bhavsar and anr. Vs. Sulochana Vasant Bhavsar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj1090
V.C. Daga, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith:Heard by consent of parties.Perused petition,affidavits and counter affidavits with written submissions circulated by the rival parties.2. This petition is filed by the judgment debtors in Suit No. 156 of 1995 who have basically challenged three judgments and orders, out of which two are passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Nasik; one dated 18th November, 2003 in Civil Appeal No. 197 of 2003 and, another dated 22nd August, 2003 in Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2003, and, third dated 19th December, 2003 by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Nasik in Civil Appeal No. 338 of 2003.3. Out of the above three orders, an order dated 22nd August, 2003 has been passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Nasik in Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2003 arising out of order dated 30th July, 2003 passed below Exh. 128 in Regular Darkhast No. 141 of 2000 whereby the said application (Exh. 128) the judgment debtors had prayed for stay of the execution procee...
Hanumant Ganapati Shinde Vs. Vasant Shivram Bartakke and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR765; 2005(2)BomCR404; 2005(1)MhLj752
D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Satara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 165 of 1989 reversing the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division in Regular Civil Suit No. 469 of 1987.2. The petitioner is a landlord and claims to be the full owner of northern half part of the property bearing city survey No. 198, Bhavani Peth, Satara. The total property originally belonged to Gangadhar Phadke and was inherited by his two sons Anant and Sitaram. Anant Phadke died in 1998 and Sitaram Phadke died in the year 1978. Gangadhar also owned some other properties including 82, Venkatpura. By a sale deed dated 8th January, 1987, Anant Phadke acting through his Power of Attorney and daughter Chitra Phadke @ Suhaslni Deshpande sold northern half share in the property 198, Bhavani Peth to the petitioner. The northern half share in the said property was sold on the basis that there was a partition betwee...
Smt. Maria Greta Soares E Matos Sequeira D/O Antonio Lactancio Soares ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR622
N.A. Britto, J.1. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law :Whether under Section 34 of the C. P. C. it is permissible for the Appellate Court to grant interest at the rate of 12% to the respondent from the date of receipt of land acquisition compensation by the appellant (le. 17.11.86) till the date of realisation.2. Some facts need be stated to answer the said question. The appellants herein were the defendants in R.C.S. No. 101/89. The plaintiffs in the said suit had claimed that they had purchased two properties namely 'Varzea Pasqualem' having Survey No. 5/15 and 'Pasqualem' having Survey No. 335/ 2 both of Verna village. A portion of the said properties was subsequently acquired by the Government, but the L.A.O. paid to the defendants the compensation payable thereon on 19.6.86 in the sum of Rs. 18,523.60. The plaintiffs claimed that they approached the defendants, after they came to know about the said acquisition and the receipt of compensation by t...
Gopal Builders and Developers Vs. Mrs. Maria Santana Julia Maximiana P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR257
N.A. Britto, J.1. The plaintiff as well as the defendant have challenged the judgment/ decree dated 18th September, 1997, of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, in Special Civil Suit No. 176/1994/A.2. The defendant has filed the appeal challenging the decree in the suit against the defendant in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The plaintiff has challenged the said decree in the cross objections filed by her in not awarding to the plaintiff pre-suit interest of Rs. 3,24,000/- and further interest in the said principal sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-.3. Some more facts are required to be stated to dispose of the appeal filed by the defendant and the cross objections filed by the plaintiff.4. There was an agreement dated 30th October, 1989 entered into between the plaintiff and one Mr. Cajetan Cordeiro, Partner of the firm M/s. Cisco Group. The said agreement was replaced by an agreement dated 15th October, 1990, between the plaintiff, the defendant and the said firm M/s. Cisco Group. Under...
Shriji Builders Through Its Partner Mrs. Anusuyaben Rasiklal Gangani a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR704
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Admit. By consent, heard forthwith.The substantial questions of law that arise for determination in this Second Appeal are as follows :1. Whether the Courts below could have validly rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, without affording an opportunity to the plaintiffs to cure the defect as to valuation? and2. Whether the decision to reject the plaint could have been taken by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, or was required to be taken by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji?2. There are concurrent findings of both the Courts below by which the appellants' plaint has been rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for being undervalued.3. The appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No. 58/03/C in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji. There is no dispute about this. In the suit the appellant has challenged the validity of a sale deed purportedly executed by the respondent No. 2 on behalf of ...
Manohar Kushaba Gangurde Vs. Police Sub-inspector of the State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR659
R.S. Mohite, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) challenging the judgment and order passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik on 30.11.1991 in Sessions Case No. 173 of 1991 convicting the accused for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default to undergo R. I. for six months.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :A, That the complainant Kushaba Dondiba Gangurde (P. W. 2) was a resident of village Vadali Bhairav where he was residing along with his wife and two sons, namely, Kalu and Mohan. The accused Manohar was his third and eldest son and he lived adjacent to the house of the complainant, separately from the other members of the family. The deceased Baby alias Sunanda was the wife of the accused Manohar and was living with him in his house. The relationship between the accused and the deceased were not cordial...
Gangapur Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT563Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.5,25,883/- (out of the total duly demand confirmed of Rs. 5,75,883/-, Rs. 50,000/- has been paid in compliance with the stay order of the Commissioner (Appeals) arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the provisions of Section 11D applied to recovery of Sugar Incentive Scheme under Notification No. 130/83-CE and 131/83-CE.2. We have heard both sides, we find that in the case of Saraswati Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. and others, the Tribunal held that the introduction of Section 11D would invalidate the entitlement of the appellant under the Sugar Incentive Scheme and against that final order, the reference application has been allowed as seen from [2001 (42) RLT 546 (CEGAT)]. We also find that the contention of the applicants that the provisions of Section 11D did not cover levy of additional duty of excise (Goods of Special Importance Act) 1957 is not prima facie acceptable as in the case of Brip...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »