Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments
ishwar Niwruti Danane Vs. Laxman Fakirsa Burbure
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR862; 2005(1)BomCR738; 2004(4)MhLj1066
D.G. Karnik, J.1. A decree for possession passed against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent is impugned in this petition.2. By a notice of demand dated 2nd July, 1992 the respondent demanded from the petitioner arrears of rent from 1st July, 1990 to June, 1992. The petitioner neither paid the arrears demanded nor filed an application for determination of the amount of standard rent within a period of one month. A decree for possession has been passed against the petitioner on the ground of default. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ibrahim Abdul Rahim Shaikh v. Krishnamurari Sripatlal Agarwal reported in : AIR1994SC1609 , learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') only requires the dispute about the standard rent to be raised within one month and it is not necessary that an application for determination of the standard rent must be filed within a ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Kerba Shendkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC822
R.S. Mohite, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State for setting aside the Judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 2.12.1992 in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1992, by which the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent (hereinafter referred as 'accused') from the charge punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The brief prosecution case is as under:a) Deceased Shalan was married with the accused. They were staying together in one room at Dandekar Pool area in Pune city.b) On 2.10.1991, Shalan was cleaning the blue plastic cover glass on the television in their residence. The said T.V. glass accidently fell on the ground and was broken in one corner. Shalan however, did not report the said fact to her husband. On the next day i.e. 3.10.1991 at about 10 a.m., the accused noticed that the glass covering the television was broken and he asked his wife as to why she broken the said glass. Shalan told him that while she was cleaning the T.V. glass, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Babu Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4593; II(2004)DMC488
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. Neither the appellant nor his Advocate present. Bearing in mind the decision of the Apex Court in Bani Singh and Ors. v. State U.P., reported in : 1996CriLJ3491 we perused the entire the entire records including the judgment passed by the Court below with the assistance of the learned A.P.P.2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 24-9-1992 passed in Session Case No. 121 of 1991 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangli. By the impugned judgment the appellant/accused has been held guilty of offence of murder of one Surayya, Punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to suffer imprisonment for six months.3. The accusations against the appellant were that on 16-3-1991, at about 9:00 p.m., he had a quarrel with one Surayya in her room in Diwate Chawl at Yashwantanagar, Vita, for having arranged her bed on...
Tag this Judgment!Dainik Tarun Bharat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shree Shahu Co-op. Bank Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR24; 2005(1)BomCR359
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel appearing for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.Mr. Kumbhakoni waives notice for Respondent No.1. Mr. Godbole waives notice for Respondent No.2. Mr. Dalvi waives notice for Respondent No.3. Mr. Desai waives notice for Respondents Nos.4, 5 and 6. As short question is involved, petition taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent.2. Briefly stated, Respondent No. 2 filed dispute in the Co-operative Court for recovery of certain amounts from Respondents Nos. 4 to 6. In that dispute, it was asserted that the immovable property in question owned by Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 was mortgaged to Respondent No. 2 disputant. During the pendency of the dispute. therefore, Respondent No. 2 prayed that Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 be restrained from creating third party rights in respect of the said property. That injunction was granted at the instance of and in favour of Respondent No. 2. However, during the pendency of the dispute, Respon...
Tag this Judgment!Sushilabai W/O Narayan Raut and ors. Vs. Navnit S/O Bhojraj Lakhotiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR193; 2005(2)BomCR900; 2004(4)MhLj372
B.R. Gavai, J.1. Both these writ petitions challenge the order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Akola in Revenue Appeal No. BRA-13(3)/Akot/66/1989-90 by which the Resident Deputy Collector, Akola has maintained the order passed by the House Rent Controller, Akot dated 29-5-1989 in Revenue Case No. BRA-13(3)/Akot-3/1988-89. The House Rent Controller, Akola by order dated 29-5-1989 had granted permission to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 891/92 under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Order') to issue quit notice to the respondents in the said petition.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 891/92 is the landlord/original applicant and is respondent in Writ Petition No. 465/92 (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord'). The petitioners in Writ Petition 'No. 465/92 are the tenants/original non-applicants who are respondents in Writ Petition No. 891/92 (hereinafter referred to as...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan S/O Pandurang Solanke Vs. Sheela Gajanan Solanke and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: II(2005)DMC134; 2005(1)MhLj348
A.P. Lavande, J.1. This criminal revision application is filed by the applicant challenging the judgment and order dated 29-2-2000 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, allowing revision filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein against the judgment and order dated 16-4-1998 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 221/1995.2. I have heard Mr. Samel learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ahirkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 3. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 though they were duly served.3. The applicant married respondent No. 1 on 5-5-1985. Thereafter, relations between the husband and wife got strained, and ultimately on 9-12-1988 the applicant and respondent No. 1 executed mutual deed of divorce as well as separate consent deed, which is at Annexure-A. Respondent No. 1 on her behalf and on behalf of respondent No. 2, who was a minor, filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 221/1995 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daryapur, claimi...
Tag this Judgment!Chhabilal S/O Chhotanbhau Pardhi and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR777; 2005(1)MhLj376
A.P. Lavande, J.1. This criminal revision application is filed by the applicants challenging the judgment and order dated 31-1-2000, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4/1997 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, dismissing the appeal filed by the present applicants against the judgment and order dated 3-3-1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amgaon, in Regular Criminal Case No. 239/1993. The applicants were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amgaon, for an offence under Section 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each in default to suffer R.I. for one month each. The applicants were charged for the offence under Section 325 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Criminal Appeal No. 4/97 preferred by the applicants was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia by his judgment and order dated 31-1- 2000 maintaining conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate Firs...
Tag this Judgment!Ashalata Anand Dabholkar and ors. Vs. Vrindevati Tukaram Bhaire and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR56; 2005(1)BomCR856; (2005)107BOMLR804; 2005(1)MhLj418
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Both these petitions can be disposed of by a common Judgment. Writ Petition No. 5296 of 1991 challenges the order passed by the District Court, Satara in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1988 dated 14th November, 1991, whereas Writ Petition No. 1649 of 1996 challenges the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated November 29, 1995. As the parties in both the proceedings are common and pertain to the same suit land, the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The land in question in the present proceedings is agricultural land bearing Survey No. 507, Hissa No. 14 admeasuring 97 ares only, i.e., 2 acres 17 gunthas, out of total 10 acres 19 gunthas. The said land was originally owned by Dinanath Shantaram Dabholkar (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord')- One Pundalik Gopal Bhere was cultivating Survey No. 507, Hissa No. 14, admeasuring 2 acres 25 gunthas and Survey No. 506, Hissa No. 6, admeasuring 1 acre 15 gunthas as tenant. The land...
Tag this Judgment!Swan Mills Limited and anr. Vs. Sakharam Dhondu Panchal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR730; (2005)ILLJ990Bom
Rebello F.I., J.1. All these petitions are being disposed of by common order as they involve financial benefits to be paid to the respondents, consequent to the order passed in his favour by the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act on 12-10-1985.2. Writ Petition No. 255 of 2001 is by the Employer challenging the order of the Appellate Authority passed in Application IDA No. 646 of 1996 dated 30-10-2000. That order came to be passed in proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) taken out by the respondents in terms of the order of the Appellate Authority allowing his application for setting aside the order of dismissal and consequential benefits. By the impugned order, the learned Labour Court has been pleased to direct the petitioners to deposit sum of Rs. 2,47,224/- which was payment of full back wages within a month from the date of the order failing which the said amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. whichever is earlier.3. Writ Petit...
Tag this Judgment!Anysaua Wd/O Govind Shende and ors. Vs. Narayan S/O Shamrao Shende and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj1122
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the original defendant No. 1/appellant herein, against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Wardha, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1987 dated 8th January, 1991, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Third Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wardha, in Regular Civil Suit No. 369 of 1978 dated 22nd December, 1986, was set aside.2. This Second Appeal was admitted on 19th June, 1991, on the question: Whether the presumption as envisaged by Section 112 is available under the set of circumstances as borne on record?3. Heard learned counsel Mr. Modak for the appellants and Mr. A.B. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. There is no other substantial question of law raised and/or argued. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Modak, relied on , Ch. Kanhaiya Bux Singh and Anr. v. Mt. Ram Dei Kuer and Ors., : [1954]1SCR424 , Chilukuri Venkateswarlu v. Chilukuri Venkatana...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »