SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI
Parasharam Sakharam Dhumal – Appellant
Versus
Shamrao Mahadeo Dhumal (Since Deceased) – Respondent
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.—Heard Mr. Thorat, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants, and Mr. Talkute, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 6.
2. This Second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 18th November 1991 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Satara in Regular Civil Appeal No.38 of 1984, thereby dismissing the Appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara in Regular Civil Suit No.119 of 1976.
3. By the said Judgment and Decree, the Trial Court has dismissed the Suit for specific performance of the contract filed by the Appellant and, as stated above, the Appeal preferred against the said Judgment and Decree is also dismissed by the 1st Appellate Court, however on some different reasons.
4. Against this concurrent ‘Decree’, the present Second Appeal stands admitted on the following substantial questions of law, as framed in Ground Nos.1(a) to 1(c) of the Appeal Memo. Those grounds are as follows:-
“1(a) Whether in an Appeal preferred by the Appellant-Plaintiff, the lower Appellate Court was right in upsetting the findings regarding the nature of the transactions
Sham Pundalik Dhumatkar and Anr. Vs. Pushpa Mohanlal Talreja (Smt.) and Ors.
Durga Prasad Vs. Indra Pal Singh (Dead) by LRs.
Balwant Vithal Kadam Vs. Sunil Baburao Kadam
Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs. Smt. Raj Kumar Sharma and Ors.
Gauri Shankar Prasad and Ors. Vs. Brahma Nand Singh
Raj Kishore (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Prem Singh and Ors.
Smt. Bismillah Begum (Dead), by LRs. Vs. Rahmatullah Khan (Dead), by LRs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.