Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) Heard Adv. Mr. Mantri, for the petitioner, and learned GP Mr. Kurundkar, for the respondents. 2. The contention is, registration of an otherwise valid document tendered by the petitioners was being denied on the strength of a ready reckoner issued when there was no legal provision in Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. 3. Learned Counsel for petitioners states that amendment like Section 32A and the Bombay Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995, have come into force subsequently. He submits that even after those amendments, there are certain grounds to challenge the annual statements issued under Rule 4 thereof. He reserves right of petitioner to challenge those amendments, if occasion therefor arises in future. 4. He submits that issue of valuation of 1990 document is likely to be opened, the moment Writ Petition is disposed of. He points out that document has been registered because of interim orders passed by this Court. 5. Lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. 2. These writ petitions take exception to the impugned orders dated 18th August, 2010 in Appeal Nos.12-A/2010-L and 10-A/2010-L respectively, passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, thereby entertaining the appeals and granting interim relief in favour of the respondents. 3. The facts leading to file these writ petitions, as disclosed in the writ petitions, are as under. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.4380 of 2011 filed application being Case No.2009/LR/Inam/KV/51 and the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4383 of 2011 filed application being Case No.2009/LR/Inam/KV/52 before the Tahsildar, Nilanga under Section 9 of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (For short, "said Act"), stating therein that, they had filed proceedings before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Latur for restoration of the land Survey No.198-kh, (in WP No.4380/2011) and land Survey No.198-C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: Heard. Rule. The Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. Inspite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent. 3. The petitioner-original plaintiff is challenging the order passed below Exhibit 24 in Regular Civil Suit no.220 of 2009 dated 4.8.2011, whereby the application presented by the petitioner-original plaintiff seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the document namely issar pawti have been turned down by the trial Court. 4. The plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit no.220 of 2009 against the defendant-respondent herein, claiming decree of specific performance of agreement dated 30.8.1988. It is stated by the petitioner-plaintiff in the plaint that original document i.e. issar pawti is lost in the year 1990 and xerox copy of the document is being tendered alongwith the plaint. The plaintiff has also stated in the plaint that he reserves the right to lead secondary evidence, if the defendant denies the exe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order dated 14.12.2011, passed by the learned District Judge-1, Ambajogai in Misc. Civil Application No. 25 of 2011. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision applicant submits that the applicant is maternal uncle of Ku. Kamna Satyanarayan Handibag. It is submitted that, the application filed by the respondent No.1 for sell of land in the name of Ku. Kamna has been allowed by the trial court. It is submitted that while allowing the said application, the trial court has not taken into consideration the interest of minor child. It is submitted that it is an admitted position that the said land is purchased by the respondent for Rs.4.00 lacs and the approximate value of the said land, in the application filed before the trial Court, is shown Rs.2.00 lacs. It is submitted that the fact that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the Additonal Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik entertained the Revision No. 2 of 2004 filed by the private respondents, herein, challenging the order of the appellate authority i.e. the District Collector, Jalgaon, after a period of eight years from the date of decision of the appellate authority. It is submitted that, when a specific point of limitation was raised before the Revisional authority, the Revisional authority, in the impugned order, has observed that, there is no any limitation for filing Revision and therefore, it cannot be said that, the Revision filed after a period of eight years is not within limitation or legal. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SantoshkumarShivgonda Patil and others Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others, reported in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order dated 14.12.2011, passed by the learned District Judge-1, Ambajogai in Misc. Civil Application No. 25 of 2011. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision applicant submits that the applicant is maternal uncle of Ku. Kamna Satyanarayan Handibag. It is submitted that, the application filed by the respondent No.1 for sell of land in the name of Ku. Kamna has been allowed by the trial court. It is submitted that while allowing the said application, the trial court has not taken into consideration the interest of minor child. It is submitted that it is an admitted position that the said land is purchased by the respondent for Rs.4.00 lacs and the approximate value of the said land, in the application filed before the trial Court, is shown Rs.2.00 lacs. It is submitted that the fact that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the Additonal Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik entertained the Revision No. 2 of 2004 filed by the private respondents, herein, challenging the order of the appellate authority i.e. the District Collector, Jalgaon, after a period of eight years from the date of decision of the appellate authority. It is submitted that, when a specific point of limitation was raised before the Revisional authority, the Revisional authority, in the impugned order, has observed that, there is no any limitation for filing Revision and therefore, it cannot be said that, the Revision filed after a period of eight years is not within limitation or legal. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SantoshkumarShivgonda Patil and others Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others, reported in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. This Writ Petition takes exception to the order below Exh. 45 dated 8/4/2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharangaon, District Jalgaon in R.C.S. No.79/2008. The said application was filed by the original plaintiff for appointment of Court Commissioner. 2. The Petitioner i.e. Original plaintiff, has preferred R.C.S. No.37/2001, which is renumbered as R.C.S. No.79/2008 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Erandole, District Jalgaon for declaration and mandatory injunction. After issuance of summons, the respondents herein i.e. original defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement. The defendants denied the contentions raised by the petitioner in the suit. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, during the pendency of the above suit, the petitioner had preferred an application at Exhibit 21 for appointment of Court Commissioner. The respondents herein filed their say to the said appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed by the appellant/original complainant against the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by learned Joint Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bhusawal, dated 29th October, 2001, acquitting the respondent/ original accused in Regular Criminal Case No.77/1992, of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 420 of the I.P. Code. 2. I have heard learned counsel Mr. S.P. Brahme for the appellant, followed by the submissions of learned counsel Mr. S.S. Choudhari for the respondent. 3. During the course of submissions across the bar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would urge that an error has been committed by the learned trial court in drawing the conclusion that the cheque issued by the respondent in favour of the appellant was not for discharge of legally enforceable debt and on that account alone, the learned trial court has dismissed the complaint. He would further urge that the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 26 of 2010. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is a registered society and is established to lift water from river by way of lift irrigation. The respondent No.1 is the District Central Co-operative Bank and the respondent No. 2 is the branch of the said bank. The petitioner society applied for loan of Rs.11,94,000/- to the respondent No.1 bank, through the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 1 sanctioned loan with thirteen yearly instalments with interest @ 13% p.a. for 12 years period for repayment, on condition of executing promissory notes, by the present petitioner. The petitioner society then paid initial instalment and then amount towards the price of sugar cane was forwarded to the bank by the sugar factory, w...
Tag this Judgment!