Mumbai Court December 2005 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.
Videocon Appliances Ltd. Vs. Maker Chambers V Premises Co-op. Socy. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR97; 2006(1)BomCR6; 2006(2)MhLj388
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition raises an issue whether under the provisions of Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 a power can be exercised to entertain a second revision application. Before I deal with the aforesaid issue for the purpose of narration, few facts of the present case are necessary which are briefly enumerated as under:-2. In 1984 a builder constructed a building known as Maker Chambers V at Nariman Point, Bombay. The plans in respect of the said building were approved upto 15th floors and in 1981 a plan for 16th floor was also approved. The premises in the subject matter of the present case is premises No. 1601 which are situated at the 16th floor of the said building. It is the case of the petitioner that by 1980 all the 15 floors of the building were sold by the builder to the various purchasers of the said premises and on 2.7.1985 the occupiers of the said premises have formed a society known as Maker Chambers V Premises Co-operative...
Dattu Gundu Parit Vs. Javahar Nanchand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR106; 2006(1)BomCR17; 2006(1)MhLj776
Mohite R.S., J.1. This writ petition impugns a judgment and order dated 21.7.1989 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune Camp at Kolhapur on 20.12.1990 in Revision Application No.MRT-KP-124 of 1989 whereby, the Designated Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the revision application and set aside an order dated 21.7.1989 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Gadhinglaj Division, Gadhinglaj in Tenancy Appeal No. 16/1985. The S.D.O. Gadhinglaj had earlier partly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the A.L.T. Bhudargad in Tenancy Case No. 32-G Gargoti 342 on 31.5.1985 and had remanded the matter for fresh enquiry under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:a) That Survey No. 40/2 of Village Gargoti admeasured 1-Acre 13-Gunthas. The said land originally belonged to one Nanchand Shah. In the year 1948, one Gundu who was th...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Jethalal Ladhuram Maniar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR329; 2006(1)BomCR519; 2006(1)MhLj801
V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard the learned counsels for the rival parties. Perused Petition and annexures annexed thereto. Facts:2. This Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2005 passed by the Division Bench of Small Causes Court in Appeal No. 552 of 2001; confirming the judgment and decree to the extent it directs delivery of possession of the suit property and to that extent confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge on 22nd/23rd June, 2001 in R.A.E. Suit No. 929/2990/1987.3. The present respondents/landlords, after purchasing the suit property, by registered sale deed dated 3-11-1982, from the previous landlord Mr. Natwarlal Dwarkadas Shroff and Ors. did issue notice dated 2nd August, 1984 calling upon the Union of India and the Post Office, Chutney Road, Mumbai to pay arrears of the rent at the rate of Rs. 115.45 from 3-11-1982 onwards with permitted increase as per Section 12(2) of the Bomb...
Prashant S/O Premchand Chanekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR449; 2006(5)BomCR840; 2006(2)MhLj657
P.S. Brahme, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Rule returnable forthwith.2. The learned A.G.P. waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 Mr. D. G: Patil, Adv. waives notice for respondent No. 2. None for respondent No. 3, though served.3. The petition is heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.4. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks declaration that he be declared as a trained primary teacher and that he is entitled for getting approval as a trained teacher with all consequential benefits. The petitioner also seeks direction by an interim order to respondent No. 3 not to cancel the approval already granted to him on 29-2-2002. This Court while issuing notice by an order dated 2nd November, 2005, granted interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (2) of the petition.5. The facts which are not in dispute and which also lie in narrow compass are that the petitioner after having passed H.S.C...
Sunil Eknath Trambake Vs. Leelavati Sunil Trambake
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Bom140; 2006(2)ALLMR446; 2006(4)BomCR478; II(2006)DMC461; 2006(2)MhLj654
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 29-11-2002 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik on the application Exhibit-173 filed in H.M.P. No. 195/95 by which the said application filed by the respondent-wife seeking D.N.A. test of the petitioner and child - Rupesh was allowed. The petitioner was directed to make himself available for conducting DNA test and also to secure the presence of Rupesh for the said test before Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Nasik on 12-12-2002. This Court, however, while admitting the petition had granted stay to the execution of the impugned order.3. The factual matrix that may be relevant and material for considering the challenge, briefly stated, is as follows: The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 4th April, 1986. They were blessed with a female child. Due to some differences and events that occurred prior to 1995 the petitio...
Harish Commercial Premises Co-op Soc. Ltd. Vs. Varsha Dinesh Joshi and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR1; 2006(5)BomCR853
Kamdar S.U., J.1. The present petition raises an issue whether under the provisions of Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 a power can be exercised to entertain a second revision application. Before I deal with the aforesaid issue for the purpose of narration, few facts of the present case are necessary which are briefly enumerated as under:2. The petitioner is a registered co-operative society of a commercial premises situated at 205/206, S.V. Road, Andheri (West), Bombay-50.3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents before this Court are the encroachers upon the open space of the society and have illegally and unlawfully built 'Bakdas' in the said premises and now seeking to be made as member of the petitioner society.4. On 5.8.1978 some persons including one Mr. Bitesh S. Sagar and Nanji Devji Shah representing themselves as Chief promoter of the proposed co-operative Housing Society namely Harish Premises Co-operative Housing Society (proposed)...
Jaywantabai W/O Hansraj Gajbhjiye Vs. Raghunath S/O Kisan Lanjewar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR671; 2006(5)BomCR850; 2006(3)MhLj416
R.C. Chavan, J.1. The appellant, original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 428 of 1989, has challenged the appellate judgment of the learned 9th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, whereby he set aside the decree of specific performance passed in her favour by the learned Trial Judge and merely directed refund of consideration to her.2. The facts, which gave rise to the litigation, are as under:3. On 14-12-1988, the respondent, defendant herein, agreed to sell the suit field to the appellant/plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 32,500/-, received Rs. 5,000/- as earnest and executed an agreement, which is at Exhibit 37 on the record of the trial Court. The balance of consideration of Rs. 27,500/- was to be paid on 29-6-1989, when the sale-deed was to be executed. Since the appellant/plaintiff came to know of the respondent-defendant's attempt to dispose of the property elsewhere, she gave a notice to the defendant on 16-3-1989, to which the defendant gave a false reply contending that...
Vijaykumar Narayanrao Dixit Vs. Uday Griha Nirman Samasya Niwarak Sans ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR662; 2006(3)MhLj676
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, challenge is to the order dated 18-7-2005 passed below exhibit 50 in Special Civil Suit No. 1258 of 1993 by Forth Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur allowing application for amendment of respondent plaintiff after his examination-in-chief and cross-examination was over. 2. Considering the fact that said suit is of year 1993 and the controversy involved, parties have been heard finally at the stage of admission itself. I have heard advocate Manohar for petitioner/original defendant and advocate Dangre, for respondent/original plaintiff. 3. Advocate Manohar has contended that the amendment allowed has the effect of filling in lacuna and of withdrawing admission and prejudicially affects the defence of present petitioner. He invites attention to the plaint as filed originally, to the evidence of plaintiff and thereafter to the amendment application. He contends that the amendment as...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›