Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998ACJ965; 1998(4)ALLMR676; 1998(2)BomCR593; (1998)1BOMLR593; 1998(2)MhLj73
ORDERS. Vagyani, J.1. The short point that arises for consideration is what is the range application of the notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra granting exemption of Court Fees for woman litigants in cases relating to (a) maintenance (b) Property Dispute (c) Violence and (d) Divorce.2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present civil revision application are as under: The present petitioner No. 1 is the widow of deceased Vijaydas Vaishnav. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are minor children of deceased Vijaydas Vaishnav. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 being minors are under the guardianship of their real mother i.e. petitioner No. 1.3. The respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 2 is the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, to whom the Tanker involved in the accident belongs. The respondent No. 3 is the driver of the Tanker, who is admittedly in the employment of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 4 is the Insurance Company with whom the Tanker is insure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)9SCC723
ORDER1. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant-State of Maharashtra is that the judgment dated 31-10-1995 of this Court in Kashi Ram Namdeo Zambro v. State of Maharashtra : (1996)1SCC289 is being misunderstood by the courts to mean that the same overrides the effect of Article 15 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 and, therefore, to this extent the said judgment requires clarification. It does appear to us that there is a likelihood of the said judgment being so misconstrued, even though it was not intended to say therein that the effect of Article 15 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 is overruled.2. Accordingly, it is clarified hereby that the abovesaid judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3604 of 1982 shall not be construed to mean that it overrides the effect of Article 15 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 in cases where that provision applies. We may add that there is no reference to this provision in the said judgment and, therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR759; 1998(5)BomCR265
ORDERP.M. Lodha, J.1. Leave to amend granted.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no relief is sought in the petition against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore service may be dispensed with on them. Mr. Nargolkar, Assistant Government Pleader, waives service on behalf of respondent No. 3.4. By this writ petition the petitioner who is plaintiff in the suit prays that she be permitted to file the above summary suit without payment of ad valorem Court fee in accordance with the exemption by the Notification No. 1091/CR dated 1.10.1994. The petitioner is a lady and submits that in view of the aforesaid notification, she is not liable to pay the ad valorem Court fee on the said suit.5. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in Deepa Shashikant Godambe v. State of Maharashtra and others : (1996)98BOMLR675 , and the aforesaid notification.6. The notification dated 1-10-1994 reads thus: 'REVENUE AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT Mantrala...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR442; 1999(2)BomCR194
ORDERA.B. Palkar, J.1. In this revision application the plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 2-1-1998 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani on Exh. 1.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff Ashabai and Kaushalyabai for recovery of Rs. 2 Lakhs for compensation caused due to the loss of life of deceased Shivaji who died due to electric shock. The claim is made against M.S.E.B. (defendant) by the legal heirs of deceased Shivaji. 2-A. The office raised an objection that no Court fee was paid and, therefore, the learned Advocate for plaintiffs was heard on that point. In the Trial Court notification dated 1-10-1994 in respect of section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act was relied upon. The notification dated 1-10-1994 reads as below :'REVENUE AND FORESTS DEPARTMENTMantralaya, Bombay 400 032, dated the 1st Oct. 1994BOMBAY COURT FEES ACT, 1959.No. STP/1094/CR-859/M-1. -Whereas the Government of Maharashtra has recently announced a policy with a view to pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)BomCR34
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. Heard both the learned Advocates for the parties at length. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. A cry for gender justice is the subject matter of this civil revision application, which is filed by five female applicants against the State of Maharashtra. The said civil revision application is filed in the First Appeal Stamp No. 19880/97 wherein the Taxing Officer of this Court by his order dated 21-11-1997 refused to register the said first appeal as he found that no Court fees stamp was paid by the said applicants who are the petitioners in the civil revision application. One of the petitioners however, is a male member of the family i.e. the petitioner No. 2. Petitioners have impugned in the present C.R.A. the order passed by the Taxing Officer on 21-11-1997 directing the petitioners to pay the Court fees of Rs. 5,200/- on the claim of Rs. 74,876/-. The petitioners who are the female petitioners, are aggrieved by the said order of the Tax...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999CriLJ4137
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. The State has sought revision of the order dated 1lth August 1992 passed by the Special Judge, Thane in Special Case No. 1 of 1989 whereby the respondent accused was discharged for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC read with Section 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by dropping the prosecution against him.2. The respondent accused is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences during the period between 1-11-83 to 28th February, 1984 when he was working as Superintending Engineer with the Government of Maharashtra. He retired from the service on 29-2-1984 and thereafter FIR was lodged against him on 1lth June, 1985. After the completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of the Special Judge, Thane on 13th January, 1989 against the respondent. The cognizance was taken and the process was issued against the respondent.3. The respondent-accused thereafter made an appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(2)ALLMR615; 1999(3)BomCR787
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. All these three petitions raise a common question with respect to interpretation of the State Government's Notification dated 1-10-1994. Mr. Milind Vasudeo has appeared in support of Petition No. 280 of 1998. Mr. Bandivadekar has appeared in connection with Petition (Lodging) No. 222 of 1999 and Mr. M.S. D'Mello appeared in support of Petition (Lodging) No. 88 of 1999.2. In Petition No. 280 of 1998, the petitioner is the grand mother of a male child and the petitioner seeks Letters of Administration to the property assets and credits of late Smita Patil for the benefits of her son Pratik. The petitioner, being a lady, seeks an exemption from payment of Court fees under the concerned Government Notification. Second Petition (Lodging) No. 222 of 1999 is filed by two sons and two daughters seeking letters of administration to the property of their father who has died leaving behind only his heirs. The third Petition (Lodging) No. 88 of 1999 is filed by two brothers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)101BOMLR431
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard learned A.P.P. Smt. Pawar for the State/Petitioner and Mr. D.B. Savant for the respondent.2. A motor truck bearing No. Plate No. UP-15-F/3821 was intercepted by the Inspector of State Excise at Check Post insuli Tal. Sawantwadi. Dist. Sindhudurg situated at the border of Maharashtra and Goa and it was found that the truck was carrying foreign liquor from U.P. to Goa. When the Excise Inspector inquired about T.T.P. i.e. through transport permit or pass from the driver, it was found that the driver did not have that permit. Therefore, the Inspector seized the vehicle along with the contraband goods and prepared a panchanama and filed a case against respondent under Section 66(1-b), 65(a), 108, 80, 81, 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act.3. The respondent applied before the Magistrate for releasing the goods. His application was rejected. He, therefore, filed a criminal revision application bearing No. 32 of 1997 before the Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg. The Sessions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)101BOMLR498
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in Sessions Case No. 210 of 1990 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo two years S.I. for offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C.2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under:-The victim Tatyaba P.W. 3 and Sakharam P.W. 7 were the first cousins of the appellant inas much as their fathers and the father of the appellant were real brothers. Tatyaba, Sakharam and the appellant had a real uncle called Putalaji. The appellant's case was that Putalaji had adopted him. In 1957, the appellant had been convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. While he was in prison and undergoing sentence, Putalaji had sold four acres of land to Sakharam. By the time he was released from prison, Putalaji and his wife were no more. On coming out from the prison, the appellant started saying that the land purchased by Sakharam belong...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)102BOMLR201
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The only question Involved in the first appeal is whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the plaintiffs suit as not maintainable relying on Section 69(2-A) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. He filed a suit on 14.1.1980 against the respondent, who is the original defendant in the suit, inter alia praying for dissolution of partnership firm and for rendition of accounts and other ancillary reliefs. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that he is the owner of shop No. 3 (O.S.), ground floor, Dongri Municipal Market, Dr. Maheshwari Road, Bombay, and he started carrying on business in bangles and cutlery in the said shop in the name and style of Kishore Novelty Store. Defendant, who is his brother-in-law requested him to induct him as partner in the said business and he promised to contribute Rs. 10,000/-towards partnership business as share capital in the proposed partnership business and accordingly partnership bus...
Tag this Judgment!