Mumbai Court December 2007 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.
Mohanlal S/O Nathulal Khirayyah Vs. Haji Shaikh Bashir S/O Shaikh Mast ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR237; 2008(2)MhLj258
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal. 2. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/-, which came to be decreed. The defendant preferred appeal which was allowed and the suit was dismissed. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant. 3. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as under Plaintiff and defendant know each other since long. Defendant wanted to purchase agriculture land at village Selu (Bu.). He, therefore, was to pay some money to his vendor. The defendant had an apprehension that if he does not pay money to the vendor, the contract may come to an end. He, therefore, made a request to the plaintiff to lend him Rs. 20,000/-. The plaintiff lent Rs. 20,000/-to the defendant considering his plight. On 5/9/1991, the defendant executed a hand loan receipt (Usanwar chit) in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded the said money back. The defendant failed to pay the same. It is alleged that no interest was a...
Patel Gas Agencies, a Partnership Firm, Duly Registered Under the Prov ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj670
A.H. Joshi, J.1. All these petitions involved a common question and hence are decided by a common order. 2. Present petition is a second round of petition to this Court. Petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 3961 of 2007 challenging order passed by Industrial Court, Akola, in Complaint [ULP] No. 39 of 2007. Relevant record of Complaint [ULP] No. 39 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3961 of 2007. Papers of said decided Writ Petition were called for reference. 3. Respondent filed on 20th April, 2007 Complaint [ULP] before Industrial Court, Akola, being Complaint [ULP] No. 39 of 2007, praying for the relief, which is relevant for this case, is as follows:2. ...and further declare that the respondent No. 1 by not paying the salary during the pendency of the enquiry has committed serious unfair labour practice;....4. In the Complaint [ULP] No. 39 of 2007, the complainant filed an application under Section 30[2] of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevent...
Mr. Abhimanyu Dattaram Sawant and ors. Vs. Rauko Cine Laboratories and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR249; [2008(116)FLR937]
Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. This petition impugns the judgment and order of the Industrial Court dated 4.7.1996 in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 1450 to 1458 of 1992, 1460 to 1463 of 1992 and 797 of 1993. The 14 petitioners in these petitions had filed individual complaints under Items 5, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The complaints have been dismissed by the Industrial Court on 4.7.1996.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:The petitioners were permanent workmen of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' in short). They were members of the Bharatiya Kamgar Sena (hereinafter referred to as 'the Union' in short). According to the petitioners, they continued to be members of the Union upto 31.12.1991. On 24.1.1992 a notice was displayed by the Company declaring a purported closure. This, according to the petitioners, was a sham and bogus closure. Closure compensation was not paid to the workmen nor were their services term...
Ravi Shinde and ors. Vs. Medical Council of India and the Deputy Regis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR7; 2008(2)BomCR430; (2008)110BOMLR194; 2008(2)MhLj746
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The case of the petitioners is that after passing their 12th standard examination, they were selected for MBBS course in the year 2005 in their respective colleges and all of them, thereafter, pursued the first MBBS course. They appeared for the examination conducted in or about 3/7/2006. All the petitioners failed in the said regular examination. Thereafter, they took the next supplementary examination conducted in or about November, 2006 and passed the said examination. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent 2-University ought to have allowed the petitioners, after passing their first supplementary MBBS examination to join the regular batch or the main batch of the second MBBS course. According to the petitioners, they should have been allowed to take the second MBBS professional examination along with the students of the regular batch who had passed their first MBBS professional examination. 2. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petition...
Fairview Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Savinder S. Rekhi and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR276; 2008(2)BomCR436; 2008(2)MhLj355
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The relief which has been sought by the Plaintiff in the Notice of Motion which falls for consideration is to the following effect:(i) Injunctive relief is sought against the Defendants from loading or utilizing TDR on the plot of land forming the subject matter of the suit; (ii) Injunctive relief is sought against Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 from carrying out development or construction on the plot in question; (iii) Injunctive relief is sought restraining Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 from entering into transactions for the sale of premises in the proposed building which is to be constructed on the plot; (iv) Implementation of the sanction and permission granted by the Municipal Corporation for development is impugned; and (v) The appointment of a Receiver is sought in respect of the work of construction that is being carried out by Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 8. Arguments have been heard on the Notice of Motion and with the consent of all the Learned Counsel, the ...
Sanjay S/O Late Ramesh Kumar Sinha Vs. Mineral Exploration Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR262; 2008(2)MhLj27
A.H. Joshi, J.1. This petition was listed on board in view of the Civil Application filed by the respondent for vacation of stay.2. Being unmindful as to the year of filing of petition, learned Advocates of the parties were asked whether the petition could be taken up for final disposal. Learned Advocates answered in the affirmative. The petition was, therefore, heard at length believing it to be heard for final disposal. At the time of passing of the order, however, it has revealed that the final hearing of the present petition does not pertain to my roster though application is to be heard by me. Thereafter, on 17-12-2007, Civil Application was listed on board and Learned Advocates were called upon to argue the application and advance if any submissions are to be made on the Civil Application. Learned Advocates advanced brief submissions on the basis of the hearing conducted as referred to in foregoing para, and requested for deciding the Civil Application.3. This Court, therefore, p...
Shaikh Gafoor S/O Shaikh Lal Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ643
S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff seeking enhancement in the amount of damages awarded by the learned II Joint C.J.S.D. Beed. The appellant had filed the Special Civil Suit No. 42 of 1994 seeking recovery of the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The suit was partly decreed and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to make payment of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.2. The appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of damages, awarded by the trial Court, has filed this appeal on the point of quantum only. The parties herein are referred to their status in the Special Civil Suit No. 42 of 1994.3. The agricultural land Gat No. 436, the subject-matter of the suit, is situated at village Upli, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed admeasures about two hectares and 51 Are. The defendants have constructed the reservoir, for the purpose of irrigation, on Kundlika river flowing from the vicinit...
Garware-wall Ropes Ltd. Vs. A.i. Chopra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: LC2009(1)197; (2008)3MLJ599
A.H. Joshi, J.1. The Appeal is listed for hearing with a clear understanding given to the parties that the Appeal will be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission hearing.2. Accordingly, parties have addressed their submissions based thereon.The Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the defendant No. 1 is not entitled to manufacture, sell, use etc. or offer for sale the product patented in favour of plaintiff titled as 'GSWR and Spiral Lock Systems bearing Patent Nos. 196240 and 201177' respectively and also for a perpetual injunction to the effect as described above.By way of consequential relief, the plaintiff has also prayed for damages in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000-00, with a further decree for rendition of accounts of profit and delivering to plaintiff all the products and systems used in violation of the patent.3. The plaintiff has complained that the cause of action for filing of the suit arose in or about December, 2005, when the plaintiff came to know t...
Vivek Bhila Patil and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR87; 2008(3)BomCR754
Savant R.M., J.1. Rule, by the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.By the above petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the Orders both dated 3-3-2007 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik by which order the applications for condonation of delay filed by each of the petitioner abovenamed for condoning the delay in filing the Revision Applications came to be rejected.2. There is a Certificate issued against each of the petitioners under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the said Act' for short, for recovery of the loan amount advanced to each of them. The Certificate is dated 21-4-2003. The petitioners proposed to file a Revision Application invoking Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 against the said Certificates. However, since the Revision Applications were not filed...
Vinaykumar S/O Ashokkumar Maliwal Vs. Ramesh S/O Kishanlal Saboo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC519; 2008(2)BomCR175; 2008CriLJ2123
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this common judgment both the applications are being disposed of together. The applicant had filed two private complaint cases for offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint cases were registered as SCC No. 3195/98 and SCC No. 3197/98. They were posted for hearing on 24.2.2003. When the Criminal cases were called out, the complainant was found absent and hence, order of dismissal was passed. The learned C.J.M. discharged the accused/respondent for want of prosecution. It appears that in the latter part of the day, advocate for the complainant submitted an application to recall the order of dismissal on the ground that the complainant/applicant had gone out of station for urgent personal work and the application could not be submitted well in time due to rush of work.2. The Respondent objected the application on the ground that absence of the complainant was unjustified. The objection raised further was that the Crimina...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »