Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kondeo Savalaram Panse Vs. Digambar Ramrao Pai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR267; (2001)3BOMLR691
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the IIIrd Addl. Dist. Judge, Thane dated 11.12.1989 in Civ. Appeal No. 962 of 1987.2. Briefly stated the petitioner, landlord in respect of premises on the ground floor of CTS No. 257/3, Rasta Peth, Pune consisting of two rooms admeasuring 10' x 14' and 10' x 12' and bathroom 7' x 5', filed a Suit againstthe respondents in the Court of Small Causes, Pune being C. Suit No. 611 of 1982. The possession was sought on the grounds, of bona fide requirement; the tenant having acquired alternative suitable accommodation; nuisance, and default. Prior to the institution of the suit the tenant had filed an application for fixation of standard rent. The Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of bona fide requirement and tenant having acquired alternative suitable accommodation. The said decree was carried in appeal by the respondents before the District Judge, Pune. T...
Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat Vs. Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Bom461; (2001)3BOMLR750; 2001(4)MhLj375
A.B. Palkar, J.1. Petitioner Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat seeks revocation and cancellation of Letters of Administration granted to respondent Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe on 24.11.1994 in Petition No. 915 of 1982 pursuant to the Probate of the last Will of deceased Mrs. Antoinette Bendre Bhagwat. To appreciate the controversy, the following facts are material :2. One Bhagwant Balaji Bhagwat was husband of Antoinette Bendre Bhagwat. Both of them were permanent residents as well as citizens of the State of California. Bhagwant Balaji Bhagwat died on 5.1.1980. He bequeathed all his property to his wife Antoinette. She died on 23.1.1981 at Alhambra, Los Angeles County, State of California. U.S.A. She left her last Will dated 24.6.1977 whereby she bequeathed her properties to her husband. However, husband had predeceased her. In case of such contingency provision in the Will was that the property should go to an Inter vivos Trust created by herself and her husband by declaration of trust deed d...
Kishore Rungta and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR137; 2001(3)BomCR730; (2001)3BOMLR803; 2003(151)ELT502(Bom); 2001(4)MhLj195
ORDERS.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The Petition challenges an order dated 18th November, 1999 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, dismissing the Petitioners' appeal from an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, (D.R.T.) Jaipur and an order dated 11th December, 2000 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (D.R.A.T.) dismissing the Petitioners' Review Application bearing No. 165 of 1999.2. When this matter was taken up for admission, Mr. N. K. Kamat, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary issue challenging the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the matter relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SitaRam Singhania v. Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd. and Ors., Mr. Kamat also relied upon an unreported judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court (H. L. Gokhale, J.) dated 22nd February. 2000 in the case of Guru Kripa Plasticizers Pvt. Ltd and Ors. v. Punjab National Bank.3. At first blush the preliminary objection ...
Nagorao and ors. Vs. the Nagpur Improvement Trust and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR552
P.S. Brahme, J.1. Rule, By consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard forthwith.2. The petitioners have applied for regularisation of their lay out and, construction therein by plot holders in pursuance of the scheme advertised by the respondent N.I.T. as per the Government resolution dated 3-3-1987. The respondent N.I.T. has started accepting the payment for regularisation from 12-2-2001. However, in the mean time the respondent No. 1 has issued a notice of 28 days on 8-2-2001 for removal of unauthorised construction. In spite of that notice of 28 days as respondent No, 1 started demolition from 14-2-2001 the said action of respondent No. 1 is challenged in this petition,3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that no work of demolition of the construction of petitioners was actually commenced. The respondent No. 1, however, has started the demolition of the work which was in progress after the date of issuance of the impugned notice.4. Petitioners have filed an u...
Pandurang Camotim Sancoalcar Vs. Suresh Prabhakar Prabhu and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: 2001BomCR(Cri)857; [2003]113CompCas600(Bom); 2001CriLJ2945; 2000(4)MhLj429; [2003]48SCL437(Bom)
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. This is a group of 23 criminal revision applications along with 23 criminal writ petitions. Out of these 23 criminal revision applications, ten have been filed by the learned advocate Mr. G. K. Tamba, three have been filed by the learned senior advocate Mr. V. B. Nadkarni, eight have been filed by the learned advocate Mr. J. P. Mulgaokar and two have been filed by the learned advocate Mr. Kholkar. All the 23 criminal revision applications have been filed by the original complainant against the order of the Sessions Judge by which the order of issue of process issued against the accused Suresh Prabhakar Prabhu was quashed and set aside. All the criminal writ petitions have been filed by the accused Suresh P. Prabhu challenging certain observations and findings of the Sessions Judge in thesame order, even though ultimately the Order of the Sessions Judge was in his favour.2. I heard learned advocate Mr. G. K. Tamba in respect of his ten criminal revision applications...
NitIn Transport Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC342; 2002ACJ1383; 2001(3)ALLMR189; 2001(4)BomCR533
S.D. Gundewar, J.1. These three first appeals bearing Nos. 166/85, 169/85 and 192/85 arise out of one and the same accident and since the common evidence came to be recorded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Akola (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in all these matters, I propose to dispose them of by this common judgment.2. The appellant in First Appeal No. 166/85 is a registered partnership firm carrying on its transport business under the name and style as 'M/s. Nitin Transport' at Rajkot. Truck tanker bearing registration No. GTX 3998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the tanker') involved in the accident in question belonged to the said firm. This firm has challenged the judgment and order dated 25-3-1985 passed by the Tribunal in Motor Vehicle Case No. 50/82 whereby the Tribunal has directed the appellant (original non-applicant No. 1) and the United India Insurance Company, Rajkot (original non-applicant No. 2) to pay Rs. 17,017.11 ps. to the applicant Maharashtra Stat...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›