Mumbai Court July 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.
The Collector Vs. Atul Gangadhar Ganyarpawar,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR356; 2008(1)BomCR448; 2007(5)MhLj746
C.L. Pangarkar, J. 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith.2. Heard Finally with consent of parties.3. Intervention applications in both the review applications are allowed.4. By these two applications, both applicants seek review of the two orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2283 of 2006 on 4/7/2006 and 17/7/2006.5. A few facts may be narrated as followsOne Atul Ganyarpawar had filed a Writ Petition No.2283 of 2006 against the State Commissioner for Cooperation and the Collector Bombay. The petitioner Atul sought to challenge the cut off date as fixed by the General Order issued by the Collector, Mumbai on 6/11/2003 and Special Order dated 29/3/2006 for preparation of provisional list of voters. By this communication, the cut off date was fixed as 30/12/2002. In order dated 4/7/2002, it was observed by the court that fixing 30/12/2002 as cut off date was totally contrary to the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules and further observed that it should be 30/6/2002. The court...
Raghunath R. Desai Vs. Reliable Industrial Corporation,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR652; 2007(6)BomCR317; (2007)109BOMLR1377; 2007(5)MhLj766
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th July 1999, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the Chamber Summons taken out by the appellant for setting aside an exparte decree. 3. The Respondent No. 1 'Reliable Industrial Corporation' (for short respondent), which is stated to be a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, filed a suit against the appellant bearing Suit No. 1610 of 1992. In the plaint it was alleged that the appellant had borrowed from the respondent certain sum of money and had created an equitable mortgage of his flat bearing Flat No. 3, situate in Yamuna Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. (for short, 'the said flat') but had not repaid the loan. The respondent therefore, filed the suit and prayed for money decree of Rs. 14,62,803/-and interest of Rs. 1,54,000/-. The respondent further prayed that the said flat be sold under o...
Dharmesh Bhanabhai Vs. Top Syringe Manufacturing Co. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR212; 2007(4)BomCR492
D.G. Karnik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9th March 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge on the Receiver's Report accepting the bid of the respondent 6, Ganpatbhai Ishwarbhai Patel, in the sum of Rs. 12,60,000/- for the properties bearing Survey No. 104 (Part) and Survey No. 103, [i.e. Gat No. 6 (Part), 14 and 69 (Part)] totally admeasuring 10 acres and 14 gunthas situate at Village Dhimaniya, Taluka Talasari, District Thane (hereinafter referred to as 'the said property').2. Grievance of the appellant, who is a decree holder in the suit, is that the sale has been confirmed at a price which is grossly inadequate. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that one Shailesh Kansara, who was present in the Court, is willing to purchase the said property in question at a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- and to show his bonafide has also deposited Rs. 40,00,000/- in this Court in pursuance of the order dated 26th April 2007. Counsel therefore submitted that the learned Sing...
Lanyard Foods Limited Vs. China Shipping Development Co. Ltd. and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR752; (2007)109BOMLR1576
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 4th April 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court admitting the petition for winding up of the appellant company and appointing the Official Liquidator as the provisional liquidator in terms of Clause (a) of Company Application No. 700 of 2006. 3. For recovery of certain sums, the respondent instituted a legal proceeding against the appellant in June 2003 in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, U.K. As the appellant failed to appear in the proceeding by a judgement and order dated 13th January 2004, the English Court granted a summary judgement in the sums of US$ 44,65,890.26, US$ 2,69,324.47, UK Pounds 1,10,502.32, HK Dollars 1,85,000, SG Dollars 44,694.64 and RMB 2,41,524.00. The appellant was also directed to pay interest on those amounts at the rate of 9% p.a. A certificate dated 24th March 2004 was issued by the Master...
Dr. (Ms) Sonal S. Agrawal and ors. Vs. Secretary, Department of Health ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR690
R.C. Chavan, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent of parties. Service on respondents No. 2 and 5 is not necessary, as they are proforma respondents. 2. Eight students, prosecuting studies for Degree of Master of Physic Therapy in respondent No. 5 College, have challenged by this petition the syllabus dated 13-1-2007 framed by respondent No. 4 Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, whereby the University has fixed the duration of the course of three years, as against two years' duration in vogue in past. 3. It is the petitioners' case that they were admitted to Two-Year Course of Master of Physic Therapy with respondent No. 5 College between 177-2006 and 28-9-2006. The course was to be conducted under the affiliation to respondent No. 3 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University. Accordingly, the petitioners started prosecuting their studies. The Governor of Maharashtra by Ordinance No. IX of 2005 dated 31-10-2005 deleted Sub-sections (4) and (5) o...
Syntrex Corporation Vs. Rajkumar Keshardev and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR259(Bom); 2007(6)MhLj34
D.G. Karnik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd May, 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellant's petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Arbitration Act').2. The respondent was a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange (for short 'BSE') and was declared as a defaulter on 29th September, 1998. The appellant made a claim on the respondent for Rs. 3 lakhs plus interest of Rs. 59,503/- by making a reference to the BSE on 21st December, 1998. According to the appellant, he had given to the respondent a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of 'Vyaj Badla Transactions' which were not repaid by him. As the respondent denied the liability the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of the claim made by the appellant was referred to an Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with the bye-laws of the BSE. By an unanimous award dated 5th January, 2002, the Arbitral Tribunal dism...
In Re: Advance Plastics P. Ltd.; in Re: Dynamic Plastics P. Ltd. Vs.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: [2007]138CompCas1006(Bom)
D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. The sanction of the court is sought to a scheme of amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has stated before the court that in so far as the transferor company is concerned : (i) all the equity shareholders have granted their consent; (ii) there are no secured or unsecured creditors and in view thereof convening and holding of a meeting of the equity shareholders of the transferor company for the purpose of considering the scheme of amalgamation between the transferor company and the transferee company under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act was dispensed with. 3. In so far as the transferee company is concerned, the court has been informed by learned Counsel for the petitioner that all the shareholders have granted their consent and there are no secured or unsecured creditors. In view thereof convening and holding a meeting of the equity shareholders of the transferee comp...
Madhuri W/O Nagesh Dhurve Vs. State Election Commissioner and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)MhLj716
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith as respondents are represented. Service to respondent No. 3 is not necessary since she is a proforma respondent and no relief is claimed against her.2. Petitioner-herein who was one amongst the two candidates contesting from Ward No. 36 where respondent No. 3 was elected as Corporator, has filed this petition.3. The caste claim of respondent No. 3 has been held invalid and by virtue of effect of Section 10(4) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, and Section 9AA of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, respondent No. 3 stands unseated and disqualified retrospectively.4. According to petitioner:(a) since the disqualification operates retrospectively, the candidature of respondent No. 3 itself is to be void;(b) the Returning Officer is ...
S. Arunkumar Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC108
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 5th April, 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer of the D.R.T.-II, Mumbai rejecting an application filed by the appellant for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against the appellant on the ground that the application was time-barred in the following circumstances: The respondent Bank had filed an Original Application for recovery of debts due from the appellant and other defendants. The appellant was the original defendant No. 2. He and the defendant No. 3 were the guarantors and the Directors of the appellant No. 1 company. The appellant's wife was impleaded as the defendant No. 4 being the guarantor and the mortgagor of the flat. The summons of the Original Application were sought to be served on the appellant by registered post on the residential address of the appellant which was returned with a postal endorsement 'unclaimed'. As per the practice of the D.R.T. the copy of the judgment and order was sent on the address ...
Ashwinkumar S/O Kanakraj Gandhi Vs. Laxmidas Bhagwandas Mehta (Decease ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR677; 2007(5)BomCR601; 2007(6)MhLj819
S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalgaon in Civil Revision Application No. 11 of 1989 dated 14th September, 1990. The Petitioner also seeks declaration to the effect that he is legal heir of deceased Kashiram in view of provisions laid down under Section 5(11)(c)(ii) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1947, for short). 2. Brief facts, necessary for consideration of this writ petition, are that one Mr. Laxmidas Bhagwandas Mehta had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 408 of 1976 against eight persons. The suit was for vacant possession and arrears of rent, permitted increases and damages under the provisions of the Act of 1947. Possession was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent, non-user of the suit property continuously for more than six months period preceding the date of filing of the suit and unlawful subletting of the sui...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »