Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-04-1992
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2460
..... stated that he came in contact with b. k. joshi and d. shah through local advertisements. he also admitted having received rs. 1.5 lakhs as his commission for this mediation. in the grounds of detention it is further stated that in petitions which were filed in the court of the additional chief metropolitan magistrate, bombay, which were dated 12th march .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-21-1992
Reported in : 1992(3)BomCR408
..... of 'medication', 'medicare', 'medical' and 'meditation'. only when 'medi' is not followed by a consonant but by a vowel, 'me' will be pronounced as 'mi' as in the case of 'mediation', 'media' and 'medieval'. the word `medisprin', when pronounced, cannot be mistaken for 'disprin' as it is thus phonetically different although the entire word 'disprin' is absorbed by it. the prefix .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-31-1992
Reported in : AIR1992Bom457; 1992(1)BomCR590; 1992(1)MhLj883
..... invited my attention to some of the decisions of the supreme court on the proposition that any matter pertaining to the election, if sought to be raised at the inter-mediate stage of the election process should not be entertained by way of a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, reliance has been placed in this behalf .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-06-1992
Reported in : II(1992)DMC276
..... was beingbeaten and tortured by rakesh however, the couple had settled the matteramicably and the settlement had taken place at the residence ofkeshavchandrawith him playing and active part as a mediator. in the month of may 1986 rakesh is said to have disappeared for about a month without giving anyprevious intimation to madhu. the object, according to keshavchandra, wasto force madhu .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-24-1992
Reported in : (1992)94BOMLR764
a.a. halbe, j.1. being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned assistant judge, beed, in regular civil appeal no. 165/78, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed, the appellants/ plaintiffs have approached this court and an argument has been devised on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs that the record and proceedings involved in several orders recorded by the respondent/municipal council clearly show that the respondent/municipal council has waived its right of ownership on the suit plot nos. 116 and 80 at bhaldarpura, beed. the learned advocate for the appellants, when being drawn attention to the ground of estoppel being the ground of admission of this appeal, has fairly conceded that he would prefer to dwell on the question of waiver rather than estoppel since the documents, upon which he seeks reliance, show the waiver on the part of the municipal council. he had drawn my attention to several orders that have been passed by the chief officer, municipal council some time in the years 1965-66 and 1975 and has contended that the said authority did not chose the specifically state that the suit plots vest in the municipal council. the said authority rather in the first breath was inclined to observe that the suit plots belong to the plaintiff in an application filed by respondent no. 2 to seek mutation in the name of respondent no. 2 in the record relating to plot no. 80. again in the proceeding in the year 1975, the said chief officer did .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-08-1992
Reported in : 1992(2)BomCR22; (1992)94BOMLR965
m.l. pendse, j.1. this is an appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs against judgment dated april 30, 1981 delivered by learned single judge in suit no. 260 of 1974 dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with the incidental reliefs in respect of six pieces of lands situated at bhandup in greater bombay. the appellants are the trustees of the tulsiram devidayal charitable trust, a trust registered on july 9, 1953 under the bombay public trusts act, 1950. respondent no. 11 is the brother of appellant no. 1 and is a co-trustee and was joined as defendant no. 11 to the suit in pursuance of an order dated january 6, 1981 passed by the learned judge granting amendment of the plaint.2. the plaintiffs claimed that by registered deed of conveyance dated august 14, 1957 a piece of land admeasuring 14,017 sq. yards situated at bhandup was purchased from dwarkadas hiraji keni for a consideration of rs. 42,501/-. the sanction for purchase of the property was secured from the charity commissioner on august 6, 1963. the trustees also purchased adjoining plot of land admeasuring 37,883 sq. yards from hirjibhai dinshaw billimoria by registered conveyance dated june 27,1959 for consideration of rs. 1,48,000/-. the sanction and approval of the charity commissioner for this purchase was secured by order dated may 19,1959. both these plots of lands purchased from keni and billimoria are adjoining to each other and the trustees were put in actual .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-27-1992
Reported in : 1994(1)BomCR362
n.p. chapalgaonker, j.1. shaikh badruddin, respondent no. 1 herein, had filed regular civil suit no. 475 of 1987 in the court of civil judge (s.d.), jalna, for the recovery of possession of agricultural lands block nos. 24 and 25 situated at village majarewadi, taluka & district jalna and for the mesne profits. it is the case of the plaintiff that he along with respondent no. 2 had purchased land survey no. 6/2 admeasuring 14 acres 7 gunthas for consideration of rs. 4,000/- from the previous owners kachru, sampat and shankar. it is his further case that there was a partition between respondent nos. 1 and 2 - purchasers and eastern half portion was allotted to respondent no.1/plaintiff, whereas western half portion was allotted to respondent no. 2 imam. it is further contended that survey no. 6/2 was divided and converted into block nos. 24 to 30 as per the proceedings under the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act, 1947. after this consolidation, respondent no. 1/plaintiff was allotted block no. 27 and he has dug a well in this land allotted to him and petitioner no. 1 shaikh usman agreed to purchase land block no. 25 by an agreement executed in favour of petitioner no. 3. 2. in this civil suit, defendant nos. 1 to 4 filed their written statement contending that since the `akshatritiya' of 1962, plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 and 3 and younger brother of defendant no. 3 i.e. khannu were inducted as tenant. the terms of tenancy were also .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-23-1992
Reported in : 1994(2)BomCR489; (1993)95BOMLR662
m.s. vaidya, j. 1. these two first appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 12th november, 1982 passed by the iind joint civil judge (s.d.), ahmednagar, in special civil suit no.40/1977. the original appellants in first appeal no.36/1989 were original defendant nos. 1 to 3. out of them, original defendant no.1, who was appellant no.1 has died pending these appeals and his legal representatives were brought on record during the pendency of the said appeals. first appeal no.34/1989 is preferred by original defendant nos. 4 and 5. as both the appeals were directed against one and the same decree, the appeals were heard together with the consent of the parties and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. that, the facts which were not in dispute before us may be stated at the outset. defendant no.1 rambhau had two wives, namely, kausalyabai and tanhabai who are appellant nos.1a and 1b in first appeal no.36/1989 as legal representatives of deceased rambhau. rambhau had three sons by name, deoram (who died on 20-12-1971 leaving behind him the original plaintiffs who are respondent nos. 1 to 4 in both the appeals); malak @ mahipati (original defendant no.2); and popat (original defendant no.3). original plaintiff no.1 bhamabai is the widow of deoram and the other original plaintiffs are his daughters. the daughters were minors when the suit was filed. but they have since became majors are represented before us by a counsel, namely, shri r.t. sharma. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-14-1992
Reported in : (1993)46ITD230(Mum.)
1. this appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the cit(a)-xv, bombay and relates to the assessment year 1981-82.2. the solitary ground taken in this appeal projects the following grievance: on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the cit (a) erred in confirming the addition of rs. 2,07,000 made by the ito by way of long-term capital gains. the cit (a) erred in not accepting the appellant's claim for exemption under secton 54 of the act. the cit (a) should have held that the appellant was not liable for any payment or long-term capital gain after giving exemption to the appellant under secton 54 of the act.3. the assessee is an individual. her accounting year corresponding to the relevant assessment year ended on 30-4-1980. on 30-1-1980, the assessee entered into an agreement to sell 3/4th share of property situated at bharatiya friends housing co-op. society for a consideration of rs. 2,62,500. the capital gains arising out of the sale of the said property claimed to be exempt under secton 54 of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter called the act). the assessee stated to have acquired another flat during the year. this flat bearing no.132 in maker towers was occupied on 10-12-1979. the agreement for purchase of this flat was entered into on 12-3-1974. the purchase consideration was paid under the instalment scheme agreed upon with the builder. all the instalments were paid before occupation of the flat in december 1979.4. the assessing officer .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-03-1992
Reported in : 1994(2)BomCR213
m.f. saldanha, j.1. the appellant before me, at the relevant time, was working as a talathi in the office of waghare saja, taluka radhanagari and it is alleged that in relation to certain mutation entries, which had to be done for the complainant who is p.w. 3 ananda arade, he had made a demand of rs. 150/-. according to arade, the matter had been pending for quite some time and he was anxious that it should be concluded. the accused had visited the village on 15-8-1983 at the time of the flag hoisting function and arade met him along with p.w. 4 pundalik and requested him to complete his work. the accused is alleged to have demanded rs. 500/- which, after some bargaining, was reduced to rs. 150/- and the complainant agreed to come with the money after two days. on 16-8-1983, he went to kolhapur and lodged a complaint with the anti-corruption authorities, who arranged a trap.2. it is relevant to record that the investigating officer very clearly instructed arde that he should engage the accused in a conversation in the presence of the pancha gurav, and that, he should, within the hearing of the pancha, ensure that the accused demands the amount and it is only after this is done that he should hand over the money and give the signal by lifting his cap with his left hand. pursuant to this arrangement, arde and gurav met the accused in his office at about 4.30 p.m. on 17-8-1983. there was only one other person in the office on the adjoining table. instead of talking about the .....Tag this Judgment!