Mumbai Court July 2008 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.
Ukha Chamatya Bhil Vs. Chatursingh Bilji Bhil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR601; 2009(1)BomCR894; 2008(6)MhLj195
R.M. Savant, J.1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. This petition takes exception to the Order dated 28-9-2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shahada by which order the application filed by the respondents herein came to be allowed and the learned Judge held that an additional issue in respect of non-joinder of necessary parties is required to be framed.3. The petitioner herein is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 48 of 2003 filed by him in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shahada. The said suit has been filed for declaration and partition of one half of Gat No. 10 of village Talwadi, taluka Shahada, district Nandurbar. The said Gat No. 10 admeasures 2 H. 51 R. and it is the case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of half portion on the western side and he has been cultivating the same. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed that partition should be effected and possession should be handed over to...
Francis S/o Bennadic D'Souza Vs. Andrew alias Jairon S/o Bennadic D'So ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR874; 2008(6)MhLj450
A.P. Bhangale, J.1. By this appeal the appellants have challenged judgment and order dated 14th September, 1993 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 340/1990, whereby the appeal by the original plaintiff was partly allowed and after setting aside judgment and decree dated 23-10-1990, passed by Second Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn., Nagpur, the first Appellate Court declared that the appellant (plaintiff) is exclusive owner of the suit plot purchased by him pursuant to sale deed (Ex.23) in the suit. However, the first Appellate Court declined to grant relief of possession in favour of the plaintiff in respect of three rooms occupied by respondent Andrew @ Jairon s/o Bennadick D'Souza.2. The conspectus of the facts can best be narrated as under:The plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 599 of 1987 in the Court of second Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur claiming that the plaintiff is owner of the suit plot having purchased it under registere...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Latabai Madhav Sarode and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1387; 2008(5)ALLMR599; 2009(1)BomCR304
Oka Abhay S., J.1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. When the civil application for interim relief came up before this Court, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the claim petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 163-A was not maintainable in law inasmuch as even according to the case made out by the said respondents, the income of the deceased was more than Rs. 40,000/- per year. In view of this submission, by consent of the Counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.3. According to the assertion made in the claim petition filed by the first and fourth respondents, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 36 years and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 7211/- per month. The Apex Court has held that the remedy under Section 163-A of the said Act has been created for a specified class of the society having income upto Rs....
S. Manik Reddy Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3498
ORDERB.R. Gavai, J.1. This is an application for suspension of conviction.2. The appellant accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and under Section 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.3. Shri Borade, learned APP vehemently opposed the application. He submits that unless an exceptional case is made out, order of conviction cannot be suspended and therefore prays for rejection of the application. In support of his submissions, learned APP relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of 'State of Punjab v. Deepak Mattu' reported in AIR 2008 SC 35.4. From the perusal of the evidence, it would reveal that the complainant, prosecution witness No. 1 Sayyad Jamil was working as a Contractor. Trap was led at the instance PW-1. The allegation ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›