Mumbai Court November 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.
Sanjeev Indravadan Dani Vs. Mrs. Rupal Sanjeev Dani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR648; 2008(111)BomLR79; 2009(2)MhLj129
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. By consent, heard finally.2. The Petitioner-husband has challenged the order dated 21st June, 2008 passed on Exhibit Nos. 5 and 7 whereby the Application for stay of Petition No. A-218/2007 is rejected and Application at Exhibit 7 has been allowed directing the parties to tag both the petitions together, by leading common evidence in Petition No. A-1773/2004, filed earlier.3. The Petitioner-husband had filed an Application for stay of the petition. Respondent-wife had filed an Application at Exhibit 7 for clubbing of both the Petitions. The Petitioner-husband has filed Petition No. A-1773/2004 for restitution of conjugal rights prior to the Petition No. A-218/2007 for dissolution of marriage. Both the parties are same, the issues involved are directly and substantially interconnected and interlinked and are same in both the Petitions. The Court is same. Both the parties are contesting the matter in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai though, Petitioner-husband is no...
Ratilal Son of Jivanbhai Lalji Vs. Kuvarben Wd/O Chabildas Patel and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR124; 2008(111)BomLR89
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard finally by consent.2. The petitioner/tenant has challenged the exparte judgment and decree dated 1.7.2003 passed in RAE & R Suit No. 1633/5893 of 1978 and the judgment and order in Appeal No. 104 of 2005 dated 29.08.2008. The respondents are the legal heirs of deceased Chabildas Patel, the owner of a chawl having about 27 rooms, known as Chabildas Chawl, Teli Galli Cross Lane, Andheri (East), Mumbai-69. The suit room is a single room tenement admeasuring about 10'x10' and the rent of the premises is Rs.. 19/- exclusive of the permitted increases.3. A notice of demand dated 26.09.1978 was issued as the petitioner was in arrears of rent for more than 112 months. Therefore a Suit in question was filed for eviction in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. The original plaintiff and the defendants expired during the proceedings. Therefore, the respective heirs are proceeding with the matter. A written statement, as well as, an additional written statement are filed. O...
Anita Nagindas Parekh and ors. Vs. Anil C. Pinto (Dr.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR183
Dalvi Roshan, J.1. The original plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 were the heirs of one Prakash Nagindas Parekh, who expired on 20th February, 1984 in KEM Hospital, Mumbai. Plaintiff No. 1 expired pending the Suit. Plaintiffs 1 (a) to 1(b) are the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff No. 1 along with plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs claim damages from the defendant upon the tort of negligence.2. The defendant is a qualified practising Surgeon. The aforesaid Prakash Nagindas Parekh (the deceased) suffered from a condition called hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating). He was under the treatment of the defendant who had performed a surgery medically called upper Dorsal or Cervical Sympathectomy which is a surgery to be performed on the hands (upper limbs) to alleviate the said medical condition. Sympathectomy is a surgical excision of a part of the nervous system which causes hyperhidrosis. It is the plaintiffs' case that the defendant was negligent during course of the...
Parashram Vithoba Ubhedal Vs. Rashadbee Rajmohmad Shaikh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR159
Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to Judgment rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, in an appeal (R.C.A. No. 268/1985) whereby and whereunder Judgment and decree rendered by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Shevgaon, in Suit (R.C.S. No. 16/1979) came to be reversed.2. The suit was for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of agricultural field bearing Gat No. 129. AppellantParashram is the original plaintiff. There is no dispute about the fact that the suit field was owned by Shaikh Rajmohamad and original defendants No. 4 to 6. They executed two (2) registered agreements of sale, on 23rd July, 1975 and 11th September, 1975. By first agreement of sale dated 23rd July, 1975, they agreed to alienate 4 hectors 93 Rs land out of Gat No. 129 in favour of the appellant for consideration of Rs. 7200/-, alongwith right to draw water. They received an amount of Rs. 5000/ - by way of earnest at the material time as per recitals of the said agreement...
Jinraj Paper Udyog Vs. Dinesh Associates and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR81
Chavan R.C., J.1. By these applications under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code original complainant seeks leave to file appeals against the judgments of acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur in five Summary Criminal Cases relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When the applications and appeals were first listed, notice of final disposal was directed to be issued. Thereafter R & P too was called and has been received. In view of this, leave to file appeals granted. The applications are allowed.These five appeals are directed against the judgments of acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in five criminal complaints in respect of offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Facts which occasioned filing of those complaints are identical. There is substantially no dispute about facts which are material for deciding these ap...
Arun P. Goradia Vs. Manish Jaisukhalal Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR130
Dalvi Roshan, J.1. The plaintiff has essentially sued for specific performance of an Agreement/MOU executed by and between the plaintiff and defendants on 8th May, 2004, Exhibit-Q to the plaint. The defendants have claimed that the said agreement has been terminated by their notice dated 10th August, 2005. The plaintiff has sought a declaration that the notice of termination is without authority of law.2. The plaintiff has prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from creating any 3rd party rights in the suit property in the above Notice of Motion.3. The plaintiff claims to have been granted right, title and interest as a Developer of the suit plot of land. He claims to have purchased T.D.R. in respect of the development pursuant to the Agreement/MOU entered into by him. He also claims to have been made a co-owner of the suit plot of land which has been transferred to him upon payment of consideration pursuant to the Agreement /MOU dated 8th May, 2004. He further claims to h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›