Mumbai Court October 2008 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 State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhaskar Namdeo Wagh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR555; 2009(1)MhLj299
A.P. Deshpande, J.1. These appeals arising out of land reference Nos. 365/89, 366/89, 367/89, 370/89, 371/89, 373/89, 374/89, 377/89, 23/95, 26/95 question the correctness of the Judgment and Award passed by the District Judge, Nashik, enhancing the compensation granted to the respondents/claimants in references filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, National High Way Nashik (Special Land Acquisition Officer) published a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 20.8.1981, followed by declaration under Section 6 on 24.3.1983 and an Award under Section 11 on 23.6.1986. Though the Notification under Section 4 was issued on 20.8.1981, possession of the land has been taken little prior thereto i.e. on 16.7.1981. The claimants accepted the award under protest and moved reference applications under Section 18 of the Act, respectively. The present appeal relate to the claimants whose lands are covered by the said same notification. ...
Shantaram Vithoba Pathare, Proprietor Sharmila Welding Works Vs. Ramch ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR892; 2009(2)BomCR475; 2009(1)MhLj381
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard. By consent of all the parties, all these matters are tagged together. The basic facts are common, the Petitioner is common and the main premises in question is common, therefore, this common Judgment.2. The Writ Petition No. 4381 of 1994 is filed by Petitioner-Original Defendant No. 2. The Original Plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 88 of 1983 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chiplun, District Ratnagiri for the possession of the Suit premises under the Bombay Rent Act on the ground of change of user in the Suit premises by Defendant No. 2.3. The Writ Petition No. 4382 of 1994 is also filed by the Petitioner- Original Defendant No. 2. The Original Plaintiffs filed Suit No. 87 of 1983 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chiplun, District Ratnagiri for possession of the suit premises against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 on the ground of subletting portion of the Suit premises by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3.4. The Writ Petition...
Mont Blanc Properties and Industries Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR505; (2008)110BOMLR3632
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This is an appeal against the rejection of a Notice of Motion which has resulted in the suit being proceeded without Written Statement against the appellantsdefendants.2. The appellants took out a Notice of Motion to have the order dated 17.6.2008 set aside and taking the Written Statement on record. On 26.6.1998 the Court passed an order directing that if the Written Statement is not filed, the suit should appear for ex parte decree. On 17.6.2008, the learned Judge noted that the Written Statement was not filed and, hence, ordered that the suit should be proceeded without Written Statement. The learned Judge trying the suit has declined to condone the delay of 3683 days in filing the Written Statement. The learned Judge has observed that on 11.12.1997 the suit was transferred to the list of undefended suits and no efforts have been made by the defendants to have this order set aside and even though an order was made directing that Written Statement may be accepted wit...
Mr. Puneet Malhotra and anr. Vs. Mr. R.S. Gai, Sole Arbitrator and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Bom42; 2008(6)ALLMR856; 2008(4)ARBLR398(Bom); 2008(6)BomCR551; 2008BusLR40(Bom); 2008(6)MhLj867:2009(2)AIRKarR55(F.B).
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This bench has been constituted by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court for answering the following question:When a petition is filed challenging an Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, under which Article of the Bombay Court fees Act 1959, the court fees would be payable ?2. The necessity of constituting a larger bench for consideration of this question arose in the following circumstances:When the Arbitration Act,1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1940 Act') was in force, a person desiring to challenge an Award under 1940 Act had to apply to the Court under Section 33 of that Act. The term 'Court' was defined by Section 2(c) of the 1940 Act, to mean a Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the reference if the same had been the subject matter of a suit. Thus, in so far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, in the State of Maharashtra excluding Bombay, an applica...
Manratna Developers, a Partnership Firm Registered Under the Provision ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR550; (2008)110BOMLR3571; 2009(2)MhLj115
A.P. Deshpande, J.1. This appeal is directed against an ad interim order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25th June, 2008, restraining the appellants from carrying on the construction in according with the modified sanctioned plan dated 10th April, 2007 (Exhibit L to the plaint) till disposal of the Notice of Motion. The appellants are also restrained by an order of injunction from removing existing underground water tank and pump room.2. The facts leading to the controversy in this appeal are briefly stated herein below:The original defendant No. 1 was owner in possession of a large plot of land which comprised of some vacant area, together with various dilapidated old structures occupied by the tenants. As there were many structures on the premises, defendant No. 1 decided to develop the entire plot in phased manner anticipating that in due course of time the tenants would vacate the premises. Defendant No. 1 with the said object in mind, got the original plans sanctioned fro...
Urmila Pravinchandra Malaviya Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Pri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR463; (2008)110BOMLR3636; 2009(1)MhLj644
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ or order requiring the Respondents to produce the record and after examining the propriety and legalities of the letter dated 1st July 2006 as well as the Resolution of the Management dated 16th October 2006 and the letter dated 19th July 2008, the said letters and the resolution be quashed and set aside and further the Respondents be restrained from recovering the sum of Rs. 1,26,226/or any other amount from 3 the Petitioner. The Petitioner also prays for some other incidental directions.2. The necessary facts as they emerge from the record are that the Petitioner is a trained Graduate Teacher who joined the Anandilal Podar High School, Santacruz (W), Mumbai as Assistant Teacher on 26th July 1983. On 10th September 1991, she was rendered surplus and she joined Sheth Chimanlal Nathuram School, Respondent No. 5 herein, and according to her, pay s...
Harjinder Singh S/O Balwant Singh Osan and ors. Vs. Paramjeet Singh S/ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR888; 2008(6)MhLj884
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This matter came to be placed before us in the following circumstances:The appellant Harjinder Singh filed an appeal before Nagpur Bench of this Court challenging an order dated 3-7-2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 448 of 2005. That miscellaneous civil application was filed by one Paramjeet Singh under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act), challenging an Award dated 16-4-2005. By his order dated 3-7-2007, the Principal District Judge, Nagpur, allowed that application and set aside the Award. It appears that, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation v. Govardhani Constructions Co. 2007(3) Mh.L.J. 514 : 2007(2) Bom .C.R. 835 office of the High Court raised an objection that court fee as per Article 1 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act is payable on the memorandum o...
DHL Worldwide Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as DHL Express (Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ108Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. An order has been passed by the Conciliation Officer on August 18, 2008 holding that the President, Vice-President and three members of the executive committee of the first respondent union whose names were communicated to the Petitioner are protected workmen under Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the year 2007-08.2. The first respondent, it is undisputed in these proceedings, is a trade union registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions' Act, 1926 and is the only union functioning in respect of the establishments of the petitioner. On June 19, 2007 the first respondent communicated to the petitioner the names of its office bearers in respect of whom, a status as protected workmen was being asserted. From the record before the Court it appears that the Conciliation Officer had held, in respect of the period between 2003 and 2007, that the office bearers of the first respondent whose names were communicated by the union to the petition...
Ms. Asha Shamandas Bajaj and Mrs. Kamla Shamandas Bajaj Vs. Mrs. Meera ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3586
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This petition was filed seeking quashing of Misc. Application No. 040/470 of 2008 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. The petitioners have also sought quashing of the order passed by the said Magistrate on 16th June, 2008, by which the Magistrate had directed that the petitioner No.1 should be detained for treatment in Regional Mental Hospital, Yerwada, Pune.2. The petition was entertained by this Court and an order was passed on 7th July, 2008. According to petitioner No.1 she had escaped from the hospital and filed this writ petition. We recorded our prima facie findings that there was no need to send her to any mental hospital. Therefore, we directed that the respondents should not interfere with the petitioner No.1's life. Thereafter the notices were issued, counters were filed, record of the trial court was summoned and we have recorded certain prima facie findings by our order dated 23rd July, 2008.3. Now coming to the facts of the cas...
Smt. Dropadabai W/O Babu Aade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR559; 2009(2)BomCR490; (2008)110BOMLR3600
S.S. Shinde, J.1. The present first appeal is directed against the final judgment and order passed by the District Judge-2, Aurangabad dated 3.5.2008 in M.A.R.J.I. No.62/2008. 2. The background facts of the case are as under: The petition was filed by the appellant herein under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) to sell the immovable property belonging to the minor sons of the petitioner. the petitioner is mother of Krishna Babu Aade and Ratansingh Babu Aade.3. As per petitioner, the land bearing G.No.1 admeasuring 9 Hector 46 Ares, 35 Ares Potkharab land, having revenue assessment Rs.13.72 ps. out of which to the extent of 5 acres 34 Gunthas land situated at village Girnera Tanda was owned and possessed by the father-in-law of the petitioner and after his death, the names of all the legal heirs were recorded in the 7/12 extract. Thereafter, vide registered partition deed dated 20.12.2007, 59 Ares of land out of said lan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »