Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Madhavi Madhukar Kulkarni vs Madhukar Ramchandra Kulkarni on 22 November, 1983

Kamod Shrihari Deshpande vs Madhuri Kamod Deshpande on 11 March, 2020

In a case of Madhavi Kulkarni ( supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Dharmadhikari and Kotwal JJ.) held that whenever in a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act a decree is passed by a Court of Civil Judge Senior Division an appeal lies to the District Court and when a decree is passed by the Assistant Judge, then the appeal will lie to the High Court, since the Assistant Judge is part and parcel of the District Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Kamod Shrihari Deshpande vs Madhuri Kamod Deshpande on 11 March, 2020

In a case of Madhavi Kulkarni ( supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Dharmadhikari and Kotwal JJ.) held that whenever in a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act a decree is passed by a Court of Civil Judge Senior Division an appeal lies to the District Court and when a decree is passed by the Assistant Judge, then the appeal will lie to the High Court, since the Assistant Judge is part and parcel of the District Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Hanumant Nagvekar S/O Laldu Nagvekar vs State (Through Margao Police Station) on 8 October, 2004

In fact, there is no foundation in his cross-examination to find out whether he knew driving or not and in such a situation reliance on the case of Madhukar V. Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra totally misplaced. In this case this Court had observed that unless a passenger is conversant with driving it is difficult to rely upon his evidence to determine whether the bus was driven in fast speed or otherwise. The learned First Appellate Court was right in observing that the defence was unable to shake him in his cross-examination. The point of impact in a given situation is not always relevant and P.W. 7 A.S.I. Sail had stated that due to oversight he had not shown the spot of impact on the sketch. In my view I have my own doubt whether such a spot could at all be shown in the manner the accident took place. P.W. 6 John Fernandes has clearly and categorically stated that the KTC bus came from the opposite direction and in a fast speed and gave a dash to their jeep which was in slow speed. This evidence of P.W. 6 John Fernandes was sufficiently corroborated by circumstantial evidence. For example, the photographs show that the dash took place on the right-hand side of the Tata Mobile. The sketch, the panchanama as well as the said photographs further show that the KTC bus driven by the accused went further to the right and fell into the adjoining paddy field on the wrong side of the road. The accused gave several explanations to this situation. At. one stage he tried to put forward the theory that he applied brakes and the brakes failed. At another stage he put up a theory that his steering had failed. The accused as a driver should know that failure of brakes is different from failure of steering. P.W. 6 John Fernandes who is a teacher by profession categorically denied that the accused did not have any occasion to brake or for that matter the accident had taken place because of the failure of either the brakes or the steering. Moreover, P.W. 5 the M.V. Inspector Shri Sawant even denied the suggestion that there was possibility that there were defects in the steering prior to the accident or in normal condition. In case there was any technical fault in the bus driven by the accused, it is certainly probable that the accused would have told the same immediately to P.W. 3 Shri Dessai who was conductor of the said KTC bus and he, in turn, could have deposed about the same before the Court. The plea of failure of brakes or for that matter the plea of the failure of steering taken by the accused are nothing but an afterthought to explain the accident of losing control of the vehicle and going to the right side of the road and dashing against the said Tata Mobile and then landing into the adjoining paddy field. In my view this is not a case where inadmissible evidence has been considered by both the Courts below nor a case where any admissible evidence has been shut off. A denial to the suggestion put to a witness is certainly not required to be put to the accused to be explained at the time of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. as incriminating circumstance appearing in the evidence of the prosecution.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1