Mumbai Court December 2004 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.
Smt. Lata Suresh Jethani Vs. Hill Crest Co-operative Housing Society L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR497
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By consent, Appeal heard finally at the stage of admission itself.2. This Appeal From Order has been filed impugning the order rejecting the Notice of Motion filed in the Suit filed by the Appellant-original Plaintiff.3. The Appellant claims to be a member of Respondent No. 1 Society. She has been in use and occupation of Shop No. 4 on the ground floor of the building which consists of three wings. On 12th May 2002, it appears that the Society at a General Body Meeting resolved to develop the property by using the balance FSI and Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) available. This move was made by the members of the Society since the building required major repairs which would necessarily mean that the Society would incur heavy expenditure since the building was built in the year 1962. The Society then sent a letter dated 3rd July 2002 to all the members including the Plaintiff enclosing a copy of the proposed plan. It was proposed that the Developer i.e. Respon...
Walha Ganpat Tadge Since Deceased by His Legal Heirs (Chandrabhagabai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR92; 2005(2)MhLj764
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The order challenged in this Appeal directs a remand to the trial Court for a decision on the issue as to whether the Defendant proves that he had become the owner of the suit lands by adverse possession. 2. The deceased Plaintiff purchased the suit lands for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 20th February 1969. The Plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property under the sale deed itself. The land was acquired for the Girnar Dam project and the Plaintiff then shifted to another village. It appears that the Plaintiff's son expired after a prolonged illness and the Plaintiff himself has also expired during the pendency of the Suit. It appears that the Defendant admitted the sale transaction but put up various inconsistent pleas in the Written Statement. The trial Court after a consideration of the pleadings and the evidence before it, decreed the Suit and the Defendant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit land...
Prabhuta Augustus Villa Cooperative Housing Society Limited a Cooperat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR610; 2005(2)MhLj436
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Petitioner is cooperative society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The members of the Petitioner Cooperative Society were earlier tenants of two buildings known as Prabhuta & Augustus Villa respectively. The Petitioner society acquired the said building under registered deed of assignment from its pervious owners. Respondent No. 1 is a private limited company which was also a tenant of one of the premises in Augustus villa occupying Flat No. 1 on the ground floor. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 1 though initially had given his contribution to join as founder member, subsequently withdrew his contribution. Subsequent to the society being registered and the property been assigned in favour of the petitioner society, the original owners/landlord by letter dated 17.12.1993 intimated to Respondent No. 1 attorning tenancy in favour of the Petitioners. By letter of 15.2.1994, respondent No. 1 addre...
Vilas Shriram Mahalle and anr. Vs. Rajdhaniprasad Rahinprasad Tiwari a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR478; 2005(4)BomCR869; 2005(1)MhLj596
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This Civil Revision Application has been filed against the order dated 8th September, 2000, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.), Kamptee, rejecting the applicant/plaintiffs' application for permission to withdraw the suit with leave to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.2. The applicants' case is that the parties to the suit carry on business as partners in the firm name and style of M/s National Security Services as per a deed of partnership dated 4th April, 1997. The applicants filed this suit on 9th March, 2000 inter alia for a declaration that the said firm is a partnership firm, for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the firm name as a proprietary concern, and from carrying on business similar to that of the partnership firm and for an order directing the defendants to produce the books of accounts duly audited and to pay the applicants their share of profits in the firm.3. Admittedly, when the suit was file...
Rajesh JaIn Vs. Ashish Investments and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR588; (2005)107BOMLR924; [2006]132CompCas891(Bom); (2005)4CompLJ65(Bom); 2005(1)MhLj757; [2005]59SCL605(Bom)
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the award dated 15-7-2004. Some of the material facts in the present case are as under ;-2. The petitioner herein entered into a transaction with the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 2 is the main stock broker of the Bombay Stock Exchange. The respondent No. 1 is the sub-broker of respondent No. 2. In respect of the transaction entered into by and between the parties on the stock exchange disputes and differences arose and the petitioner herein filed a claim before the arbitrator seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,02,385.00 on account of non- rectification of bad delivery to the tune of Rs. 16,494/- and speculation loss incurred by the respondents to the tune of Rs. 4,85.891/-. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also claim interest at the rate of 18% amounting to Rs. 1,35,644/- as also cost and other expenses.3. The matter was referred to arbitration of the Bombay Stock Exchange in Reference No. 219 of 2003. After hearing both the parties...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Pralhad S/O Champatrao Deshbhratar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj784
B.R. Gavai, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11-3-1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 1986 thereby acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 302, 307 read with Section 149 and under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution story, in brief, is as under :-That, the deceased Purushottam along with his father and other members of the family resided at Bazarwada, Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha. So also the accused are the residents of the same village. That there is a political rivalry between the complainants' party and the party of accused No. 1. Most of the accused are related to each other and that they belong to the party of respondent No. 1. It is alleged that on the date of the incident, i.e. 7th June, 1986 at about 07:30 a.m., since the servant of Uttamrao had not come for work, he sent his son Kishor (PW-1) to call t...
Walha Ganpat Tadge, Since Deceased by His Legal Heirs and ors. Vs. Ram ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR501
Mhatre Nishita, J.1. The order challenged in this appeal directs a remand to the trial Court for a decision on the issue as to whether the defendant proves that he had become the owner of the suit land by adverse possession.2. The deceased plaintiff purchased the suit lands for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 20th February, 1969. The plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property under the sale deed itself. The land was acquired for the Girnar Dam Project and the plaintiff then shifted to another village. It appears that the plaintiffs soon expired after a prolonged illnesses and the plaintiff himself has also expired during the pendency of the suit. It appears that the defendant admitted the sale transaction but put up various inconsistent please, in the written statement. The trial Court after a consideration of the pleadings and the evidence before it, decreed the suit and the defendant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit ...
Golderest Exports Vs. Swissgen N.V. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR306(Bom); 2005(2)BomCR590; 2005(2)MhLj105
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking to challengean award passed by FOSFA International dated 13-8-2004. It is an, admittedposition that this is a foreign award. The present award is sought to be challengedby invoking provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).2. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the foreign award can be challenged by invoking the provisions of section 34 of the said Act which fall in Part I of the said Act. In view of the fact that I am only deciding the maintainability of the present arbitration petition, I am neither going through the facts of the present case nor I am dealing with the issues on merits which are raised in the present petition.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended before me that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S. A. and anr. reported...
Ramchandra Ramgopal Through Jugalkishore S/O Navalkishore Kothari Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj623
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Panpalia, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Mardikar, AGP for the respondents.2. By these revision applications, the original plaintiff challenges the order dated 14-12-1993 by which the Court below has set aside the judgment and decree dated 12-4-1993 delivered by it in Special Civil Suit No. 168 of 1991 treating it to be an ex parte decree.3. The applicant original plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 168 of 1991 against present revision applicant and its partners for recovery of Rs. 2,95,526/- towards the settlement of account which the revision applicant had opened with it. The contention of revision applicant is that the said account was opened by respondent No. 1 firm on 10-4-1989 and the revision applicant - plaintiff made payments against Hundi to the original defendants. The details of these payments are mentioned in the plaint and it is mentioned that on making credit debit entries on 1-4-1990, sum of Rs. 2,27,696/- was found due again...
Satish Limbraj Adatrao and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR887; 2005(4)BomCR398; 2005(3)MhLj1161
Palshikar V.G., J.1. By these petitions, petitioners have challenged the order passed by Caste Scrutiny Committee, rejecting appeals of petitioners for validation of the Caste Certificates which then existed in favour of petitioners.2. This decision holding certificates of petitioners to be invalid was rendered at a point of time when effect, was not given by State of Maharashtra to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Additional Commissioner of Tribal Development and Anr. : AIR1995SC94 . Almost immediately after this decision, the judgment and the directions given therein were fully implemented by State of Maharashtra and Vigilance Cell was established to assist every Caste Scrutiny Committee.3. The burden is and has always been on the claimant who claims that he belongs to a particular caste or a tribe and that has to be discharged by him to the satisfaction of the Tribunal before which he is required to go. It cannot be disputed that powe...