Mumbai Court October 2005 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.
Dilip Pandurang Kamath and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2005
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1193
S.B. Mhase, J.1. The Petitioners have approached this Court invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereby seeking the writ of habeas corpus. The petitioners are original accused Nos. 44, 49, 53, 56 and 61 respectively in Special Case No. 2 of 2003, pending before the Special Court (MCOC Court) at Pune, which arises from Crime No. 135 of 2002 registered with Bandgarden Police station. The Said offence was registered and charge sheet was filed under Sections 255, 256, 257, 258, 260, 263-A, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473 and 474 of the IPC, Sections 3(1)(2), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5), 4 & 24 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'the MCOC Act'), Section 63(a) of the Bombay Stamp Act and Section 13(a) & 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This case is commonly known in the media and the public as 'The Telgi Stamp Scam Case'. Petitioner No. 1 (original accused No. 44) was arrested on 1...
Khandu Alias Kanderao Ramchandra Gode (Since Deceased by His Heirs and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR457; 2006(2)BomCR656; (2005)107BOMLR1077
P.V. Kakade, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by 2nd Addl. District Judge, Nasik decreeing the plaintiffs' suit by order dated 25th October, 1985 for partition and separate possession of respective shares of the property by modifying the decree passed by the trial court dated 31st July 1981.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record.3. The Plaintiff No. 1 Chandrabhagabai filed the suit for herself and for her minor children claiming she was married to Rajaram after the death of his first wife. This marriage had taken place about 15/20 years ago. The plaintiff did not give any particulars about the year or date of marriage. It was submitted that the marriage had taken place in presence and at the hands of priest in a Gandharva Form. After the marriage she gave birth to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 who were begotten from the said marriage. Rajaram was serving as a Police Constable, who died in April 1969. The...
Smt. Shantidevi Kamaleshkumar Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra Through I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR50; 2006(1)BomCR151; (2005)107BOMLR1040; 2006(1)MhLj111:2008AIRSCW7480
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21st November, 2003 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste certificate given to the petitioner by the appropriate authority. According to the petitioner, this order is liable to be quashed on the following grounds: (1) The order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the documents relied upon were not confronted to the petitioner and the petitioner was not given opportunity to meet those documents; (2) The entire order as will be disclosed from the operative part rests on issue No. 1, namely, issuance of the certificate by a person not competent and, therefore, there is non application of mind by the committee to the evidence on record, on the basis of which only conclusion regarding the petitioner belonging to caste - Yadav or not can be drawn; (3) The entire order of the committed is vitiated because the enquiry conducted by the vigilance cell is no...
Smt. Tangavva W/O Shankar Pawar and ors. Vs. Smt. Tulasabai Doulu Jadh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR61; 2006(1)BomCR115; (2005)107BOMLR1131
P.V. Kakade, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sangli dated 12.7.1989 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jat dated 13.2.1987 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for redemption of mortgage and for possession of the suit land.2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record.3. The Plaintiffs filed the suit for redemption of mortgage property. The plaintiffs have given geneology of the family which shows that one Sakharam was common ancestor. Gangavva was wife of Sakharam. Sakharam had two sons, namely Tukaram and Daulu. Tukaram left behind him his wife Laxmibai and daughter Jijabai. The other son Daulu expired about 40-50 years back. He was surviving his wife Tulsabai. Tulsabai adopted respondent No. 2 Laxman. Wife of Tukaram namely Laxmibai had a brother by name Govind Nana Pawar. She gave her daughter in marriage to her...
Shri Dharmarao Sidhappa Shetgar (Since Deceased Through Lrs. Smt. Padm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Bom228; 2006(1)ALLMR57; 2006(2)BomCR652; 2006(3)MhLj249
P.V. Kakade, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by Addl. District Judge, Solapur dated 30th November, 1989 partly allowing the Appeal but concurring with the findings of the learned trial court that specific performance of the contract cannot be granted in favour of the Plaintiff. This finding came to be recorded in the appeal against the Order passed by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur dated 25th November, 1986 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance but granting refund of earnest money at the foot of the suit transaction.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the entire record including the written submissions filed by both the sides.3. The plaintiff came with the suit for specific performance of the agreement with the defendant No. 1 with allegations that the suit property was owned and possessed by defendant No. 1 as it had been allotted to his share. It was alleged that the defen...
Shri Sahebrao Tukaram Tapkir and ors. Vs. Shri Baban Maruti Tapkir and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR272; 2006(1)BomCR124; (2005)107BOMLR1181
P.V. Kakade, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.The appeal was placed for admission, however, in view of the facts and circumstances, it was agreed that the appeal should be heard finally at the stage of admission and accordingly the appeal was heard finally after the receipt of record and proceedings and filing of compilation of relevant documents on record.2. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the 5th Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge, Pune, dated 21.10.2003 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, S.D., Pune, in Civil Suit No. 1983 of 1994 who had dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court decreed the suit for partition determining the shares of the parties with directions for consequential reliefs.3. The facts involved in the dispute, in a nut-shell, are thus --In all 24 agricultural lands located at Baner, Tal. Haveli are involved in this suit. The original ...
Mohammad Rafiq S/O Mohammad Ismail Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj270
R.C. Chavan, J.1. Brother of detenu Taj Mohammad @ Wani s/o Mohammad Ismail has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of habeas corpus challenging the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Amravati, and confirmed by the State Government under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981.2. The detention order, along with the grounds of detention, served upon the detenu on 15-5-2005, are annexed to the writ petition. The petitioner challenges the detention of his brother, amongst others, on the ground that though the detenu does not know Marathi, documents which form part and parcel of the grounds of detention, were served upon the detenu in Marathi. This resulted in denial of opportunity to make effective representation against the order of detention. The detention is further challenged on the ground that the Commissioner of Police had passed the dete...
Ramgonda Layappa Birajdar and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Office ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj436
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Both these Petitions arise out of an award dated 23rd March, 2000 passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called as 'the said Act.' While the Writ Petition No. 2932 of 2001 has been filed by the claimants seeking direction for disbursement of amount to them in accordance with the said award consequent to acquisition of their land, the Writ Petition No. 1437 of 2002 has been filed by the State Government challenging the said award on various grounds including the ground relating to abuse of powers amounting to fraud by the Land Acquisition Officer in the matter of fixation of compensation to be awarded to the claimants.2. By Notification issued under Section 4 of the said Act on 30th October, 1997, certain pieces of land belonging to the respondents and situated in the village of Bhivargi and Karajagi in the Taluka-Jath District-Sangli, admeasuring about 293.47 hectares were sought to be acquired by invoking provisions of Section ...
Suresh S/O Lahorimal Khatri Vs. Balkisan S/O Shivnarayanji Chandak and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR146; 2006(3)BomCR135; 2006(2)MhLj443
P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the records.2. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4756 of 2004 on 25th February, 2005 is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition confirming the order dated 4-10-2004 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Amravati. The learned Joint Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Amravati vide his order dated 4-10-2004 dismissed the R.M.J.C. No. 33 of 2004 filed by the appellant wherein he has sought for extension of time and R.M.J.C. No. 59 of 2004 filed by respondent No. 1 for rescission of contract came to be allowed.3. The facts which are not in dispute may be stated in brief as follows :The appellant filed Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 2001 on 30-3-2001 against the respondent No. 1 (sole defendant) for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement of sale dated 9-2-2001 whereunder the defendant agreed to sell his house property to ...
Krishi Vikas Kendra Vs. Mukund and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2005
Reported in: III(2007)BC542
A.H. Joshi, J. 1. The original complainant who has filed Criminal Case No. 1335/1991 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has filed this appeal, as Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondia has dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused.2. The judgment of acquittal is based on the finding that the transaction, in question, was by way of security and was not towards the discharge of debt or liability and, therefore, the transaction was beyond the scope of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. The judgment of acquittal is challenged on the ground of being erroneous illegal and based on considerations not borne on record, and by drawing inferences which are not permissible from the evidence on record.4. It is seen that the complainant has examined himself, he gave entire account of facts and the background in which for the cheque was given. He has proved the entire transaction and that in the open and current account maintained by him arrears of Rs. 51,888/...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »