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.
Mr. Bomi Pirojshaw Sachinwala Vs. Dr. Cyrus S. Badshah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR804; (2008)110BOMLR3656; 2009(1)MhLj674
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. This Petition is for revocation of the Letters of Administration granted to the Respondents. The Petitioner claims to be the executor of the last Will and Testament of the deceased one Dr. Shahapoor Behram Badshah who died in Bayreuit, Germany on 26 th March 2007. It is his case that the Will, though known to the Respondents, was suppressed and the Letters of Administration have been fraudulently obtained. Hence, he has applied for revocation. 2. The Will is dated 19.1.2000. It is registered on that date itself before the Sub Registrar of Assurances. Under the said Will, a Trust called Dr. Shapoor Behram Badshah Charitable Trust is created. Certain properties are bequeathed to the Respondents herein who are the two sons of the deceased. A large part of an immovable property is settled upon Trust. There is no separate Deed of Trust prepared. There are certain other small properties movable and immovable which are also to vest in the Trust. 3. The Petitioner is a contr...
V.L.T. Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Ajitkumar S. Puri and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2008
Reported in: (2009)ILLJ709Bom
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The III Labour Court, Mumbai, vide its Award dated May 7, 2007 answered the reference in favour of the workman and directed the Company to reinstate the workman with full back wages and continuity of service with all consequential benefits. The correctness and legality of the award was challenged by the Company by filing a Writ Petition No. 6/2008 before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge, after detailed discussion, found that the Petitioner in the Writ Petition had failed to make out a case for interference and thus rejected the writ petition with no order as to costs. In the present Appeal, the Company-Appellant has taken an exception to the order of the learned single Judge dated April 7,2008 .2. Necessary facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that the workman was employed as a senior Clerk in the Company since 1979 where he continued to serve till his services were terminated on January 30, 2003. At the relevant time, he was drawing a s...
Vasant Hiraji Kaddo Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR638; 2009(1)BomCR743
Rohee K.J., J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks (i) quashing of the communication dated 4.1.1998 made by under Secretary, Government of Maharashtra (respondent No. 1) to the petitioner and the communication dated 2.3.1998 by the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Region, Nagpur (respondent No. 3) to the Head Master, Yugantar Mahiya Vidyalaya, Nagpur in respect of condoning the break in service period of the petitioner and (ii) directing the respondents to condone the break in service of the petitioner on par with two other employees and finalise the pension of the petitioner accordingly.2. The facts which gave rise to the present petition are all admitted and they are as under:The petitioner having acquired the qualification of B.Sc. B.T. was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Mahatma Gandhi Vidyalaya, Armori on 18.10.1.956. He was confirmed there and thereafter was promoted as Head Master in the same school on 1.4.1958. However, ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Disanrao Phadtare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR833
Kumar Swatanter, C.J.1. By this judgment, we are disposing of ten First Appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and Award dated 9th August 1999 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, in Land Reference Nos. 431 of 1993. By the said Judgment, the Reference Court had disposed of nine Land References, namely, Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 434 of 1993, 425 of 1993, 427 of 1993, 428 of 1993, 429 of 1993, 432 of 1993, 433 of 1993, 434 of 1993 and 436 of 1993.2. Civil Application No. 3131 of 2004 is filed in First Appeal No. 488 of 2000 for bringing on record the legal heirs of Claimant. There is no opposition. Hence, Civil Application allowed. Necessary steps be taken for bringing the legal heirs on record. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.3. The Appropriate Government issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 27th July 1988 declaring its intent to acquire nearly 1...
Satyanarayan Ramnarayan Totla and Kedarnath Ramnarayan Totla Vs. Rahul ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR891
S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned VI Civil Judge (Junior Division), Aurangabad, below Exhibit 94 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1087 of 2004, dated 15.9.2008. 4. Petitioners (plaintiffs) had filed the said suit for perpetual injunction. Two interim applications were filed in the said suit i.e. Exhibit 5, filed by petitioners seeking temporary injunction against respondents and Exhibit 18, by respondents, seeking temporary injunction against petitioners. Both applications have been decided. Exhibit 5 was allowed and Exhibit 18 was rejected. Aggrieved defendants filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 233 of 2004 and that came to be dismissed on 9.11.2005. 5. Application Exhibit 94 was filed by the plaintiffs in the trial court seeking permission to lead secondary evidence. Copy of this application is on record at Exhibit 'D'. This application is rejected b...
Vij Kamagar Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Through Its Vice Chairman Shr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR880; (2008)110BOMLR3560
S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard Shri Salunke, learned Advocate for the petitioner. He seeks leave to delete respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from this writ petition, since contesting respondent No. 1 is appearing on caveat.Leave granted. Deletion to be carried out forthwith.Heard Shri Sapkal, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1.2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 3. The factual matrix, relevant at this stage, can be summarised as follows:Petitioner is plaintiff in RCS No. 182 of 2007 filed in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambajogai, District Beed. Copy of the plaint is not available with any of the counsel appearing for parties in this petition.Shri Salunke, learned Advocate submits that the suit filed is for declaration and perpetual injunction. This position has not been disputed by Shri Sapkal, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1.4. The suit was followed by an application Exhibit 5, seeking temporary injunction against defendants. Said a...
Smt. Jatina Samir Shah Nee Jatina Rasiklal Thakkar Vs. Shri Samir Mohi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR741; (2008)110BOMLR3491; 2009(1)MhLj628
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Admit. 2. Mr. L.C. Joshi, the learned Counsel waives service on behalf of respondent. With the consent of both the sides, this Appeal is taken up for final hearing today. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Family Court No. 6, Bandra, Mumbai dated 20th November, 2007 in Petition No.F-646 of 2007, by which the learned Judge dismissed the same on the ground that the pre-requisite condition of filing of the petition for divorce by mutual consent is not satisfied, as in view of the agreement executed by the parties regarding mutual divorce, it cannot be said that on the date of filing the application, the relationship of husband and wife was subsisting. The appellant and respondent herein had submitted the said petition for mutual divorce under Section 13(b) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. The marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 2nd February, 2006 and however, they...
Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel, Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Pso and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR782
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties.2. In the complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maregon, which is at Annexure-F, crux of the matter which purports to describe commission of offence is contained in paras 19 to 22, which are quoted below for ready reference:.19. It is pertinent to note that the sale deeds have been signed as witness by accused No. 3 Vikram Anilkumar Patel with the full knowledge and thereby has also showed sharing of common intention. Similarly, he has also stoutly mooted and floated the resolution in that behalf. Accused No. 2 Darshan Anilkumar Patel was also aware of the same and connived it by actively supporting accused No. 1 in this behalf.20. That although the order of Additional Commissioner remained in effect, still the accused persons got the sale-deeds registered and also got the mutation entry caused and register on that basis. In fact, the complainant vide letter dated 22-1...
Hanifsha Baba Darga E. Darbar Vs. Salimkhan Karimkhan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR793
Pangarkar C.L., J.1. This is a second appeal against the order of Additional District Judge who confirmed the order of Assistant Charity Commissioner framing a Scheme of the trust known as Khairullasha Darga.2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed an application under Section 50-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act before the Assistant Charity Commissioner for settlement of a scheme in respect of Khairullasha Darga Chikhli district Buldhana. Applicants contended that Applicant No. 1 was a Trustee of the Trust and No. 2 was the person having interest in the said Trust. There-were in all 9 trustees and out of them three had resigned and three trustees had died. There was a Meeting on 20.2.1999 and the vacancies were filled in. As a result the Change Report was filed which was registered as Inquiry Case No. 259 of 1999. The said Change Report was admittedly allowed. It is contended by the applicants before the Charity Commissioner that there is no Scheme for proper management of the trust and the...
Smita N. Trivednee Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR767
Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule heard forthwith.2. From the pleadings on record, some facts may be set out. The petitioner joined the services of respondent No. 1 and was confirmed with effect from 2nd January, 1974. During the course of the employment, petitioner has been transferred to various branches. The petitioner, with effect from 1st July, 2003 was posted as an officer at Mumbai, main branch at the International Banking Division of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner applied for Privilege Leave for the period from 1st September, 2003 to 27th September, 2003, which was sanctioned as she was to be operated on right eye, and the concerned doctor had advised her to take rest for at least three weeks. The petitioner thereafter informed the respondent No. 1 that she had undergone off pump coronary Artery Bye-pass surgery on 4th October 2003. The relevant documents in support thereof were furnished by her and she was advised to take rest upto 28th December, 2003. The petitioner did not repor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »