Mumbai Court December 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.
Meena Suresh Mane Vs. Suresh Gangaram Mane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR495
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioner/original respondent has challenged the impugned order dated 1.2.2008 passed by Ad hoc District Judge 2, Satara on Exh. 33 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 153/2006 as in appeal her application for amendment of the written statement to include the fact in respect of allegation of adultery and to add the concerned person as necessary party to the petition has been rejected.2. The respondent/husband filed petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner filed written statement and denied the case including averments about adultery. The ground of divorce was not of adultery as contemplated under the Act i.e. 13(1)(i). There was no such application moved before the trial Court by; the petitioner to add the concerned person as a party as there was allegation made about the adultery. In fact, issues were also framed which includes the issue of adultery. The parties led the evidence including the petit...
Abeda Iqbal Patel Vs. Cormorant Investment Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR338; 2009(2)MhLj446
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioner-original defendant has challenged the impugned order dated 7th July, 2008 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Bombay, whereby, against an order in interim notice 2014/2007 dated 8/2/2008, passed by the learned Trial Judge, has allowed an amendment application to the plaint by holding that the revision is tenable.2. The application for amendment to give better particulars of subsequent developments in consonance with the pleadings already made in the plaint was moved by the respondent-plaintiff. The same was rejected by holding that it is inconsistent and contrary to the averments already made in the plaint and it would cause prejudice and injustice to the other side. The pleadings are completed and the issues are framed. But, no affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief filed, when the present application for amendment was moved. The respondent's-plaintiff s revision application against the said order was opposed by contending that...
Sunil Ramchandra Kedia Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR397
Deshmukh D.K., J.1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. Controversy in the appeal relates to election to Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Khamgaon and to the traders' constituency. Admittedly, the appellant filed nomination paper as per election programme for the seat of Member of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Khamgaon from the traders' constituency. Respondent No. 5-Shekhar Purohit was one of the persons, who had also filed nomination paper. Neither respondent No. 5-Shekhar nor any other rival candidate raised any objection to the nomination paper of the appellant. The Returning Officer held scrutiny of the nomination papers as per the provisions of Rule 50 of the Rules framed under the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 and found the nomination paper of the appellant in order and accepted the same. Respondent No. 5 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the acceptance of the nom...
Ramesh Gopinath Tidke Vs. Divisional Controller
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR510; 2009(2)MhLj394
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this Writ Petition, petitioner employee challenges the Judgment dated 27/8/2008 delivered by Member, Industrial Court, Akola in Revision U.L.P. 45/1997. Said Revision was under Section 44 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter mentioned as Act No I of 1971). Learned Member has allowed the Revision file by respondent M.S.R.T.C. and has set aside the judgment passed in U.L.P. Complaint 45/1994 on 18/ 6/1997 by Labour Court, Akola. The said U.L.P. Complaint was filed by present petitioner challenging the show cause notice dated 24/2/1994 proposing punishment of dismissal after completing departmental inquiry, as said show cause notice was found to constitute unfair labour practice by Labour Court. I have heard Advocate P.N. Verma for petitioner and Advocate V.G. Wankhede for respondent.2. Misconduct here is of unauthorised driving of empty M.S.R.T.C. bus by petitioner conductor from bus depot...
Nishith M.P. Verlekar Vs. Ashpaque Marfani, Proprietor of 'Mustafa' Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR199
A.P. Lavande, J.1. Both these appeals are being disposed of by common judgment and order since the parties are the same and the evidence led in both the matters, is almost identical.2. The appellant in both the appeals, is the complainant in Criminal Case Nos. 532/P/2006/C and 490/P/06/C filed against the respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa.3. In Criminal Appeal No. 73/2007, the complainant filed Criminal Case No. 532/P/2006/C against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('The Act' for short) alleging that the accused had issued a cheque dated 10.06.2006 in the sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- drawn on Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, Panaji Branch. The same was presented and returned dishonoured for the reason 'Exceeds Arrangement'. Thereafter, the complainant sent registered notice to the respondent dated 23.06.2006 calling upon the accused to make the payment. In spite of receipt of the said notice, the accused did not m...
Rajiv D. Bhatia and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2008
Reported in: [2009]138ITR118(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This petition is filed to challenge the order dated 23-2-1993, passed by the Appropriate Authority under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) whereby Flat No. 47 on the sixth floor of the building C.C.I. Chambers situated at Dinshaw Vachha Road, Mumbai ('the flat in question' for short) is sought to be compulsorily purchased under the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act.2. The flat in question was initially tenanted by Dilip Bhatia and Laxmikant Bhatia. Later on the said flat was converted into ownership flat for which both contributed for the consideration payable to the society. Thus, according to the petition, both the persons had 50 per cent share in the flat in question.3. However, on the death of Laxmikant Bhatia, his wife Damayanti (respondent No. 5), without the consent of the petitioners, purported to sell the flat in question to one Vijay Tulsidas Gandhi for a sum of Rs. 60,00,000 as per the memorandum of understanding (MoU)...
Narayan Mahadu Bhokate and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR454
Mhatre Nishita, J.1. The petition has been filed in order to challenge the order passed by the Additional Commissioner in April 1990. By this order, the revision filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Alibag, District Raigad has been allowed.2. One Mahadu Rama Bhokate held agricultural land admeasuring 20 hectares and one are in village Chevane, Taluka Karjat. He expired on 25.12.1938. His mother Sakunabai, his wife Tulabai and two minor sons Narayan and Shankar were his heirs. A mutation entry was recorded in the name of Narayan by his mother Tulabai on 25.12.1938. At the request of Tulabai, the name of Sakunabai was also entered on 21.3.1940. According to the petitioners, the property in question is a co-parcenary property and Narayan who was the original petitioner No. 1 is not the sole owner of the property.3. A family arrangement was arrived at on 7.9.1974, partitioning the property by metes and bounds. Thus, Narayan, his brother Shankar and son Maruti were put in physical po...
Vilas Dadarao Chavan Vs. Kiran Ashok Patil Dongaonkar,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MhLj786
S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel of the parties.2. This L.P.A. seeks to challenge the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court ( Coram : R.M. Borde, J.) in Writ Petition No. 7251/2007 dated 21-08-2008 by which, writ petition of respondent No. 1 was disposed of as infructuous.3. Facts leading to this appeal may be stated thus:Respondent No. 1 and present appellant/Intervenor in W.P. No. 7251/2007 had tendered their nomination papers for contesting election from Khultabad Taluka Co-operative Societies Constituency. Their nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer. Respondent No. 1 challenged the order passed by the Returning Officer by presenting the appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in view of the provisions of Section 152(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The said appeal was dismissed. As such, the relevant order was challenged in the instant petition. It appears that the appellant has not challenged that orde...
Reveira Institute of Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mantri Real Estate Pvt. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MhLj953
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. This is a Chamber Summons for carrying out certain amendments in the Plaint. The amendments have arisen for purposes : (i) to bring a new party (Respondent) on record as Defendant No. 6 and (ii) to amend certain averments in the Plaint. The Suit, as initially filed, was between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 alone. The Suit was filed upon a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties for development of the suit property. Defendant No. 1 was to make out a marketable title. Two certificates of certain Advocates were produced. The Plaintiff was not satisfied with the marketability of the title of Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff sought to cancel the contract and sought refund the earnest amount. The Plaintiff has also also sought to create a charge on the suit property under the provisions of Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.2. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 claim to have title to the suit property. They applied to be brought on record and are...
Tulsiwadi Navnirman (Sra) Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and anr. V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR557; 2009(2)MhLj433
Kumar Swatanter, C.J.1. In furtherance to the directions contained in the Full Bench judgment dated 1st November 2007 of this Court in the case of (Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) Writ Petition No. 1326 of 2007 reported in : (2007)109BOMLR2493 , the State Government issued Government Resolution No. Petition 2007/CR-261/Slum-1 dated 15th November, 2007 and constituted a High Power Committee consisting of the following high ranking officers of the State:i) Principal Secretary(Housing) ... Chairmanii) Metropolitan Commissionerof MMRDA ... Memberiii) Commissioner, BrihanmumbaiMunicipal Corporation ... Memberiv) Chief Executive Officer,SRA ... Memberv) Vice President and C.E.O.,MHADA ... Member2. Different Benches of this Court, while following the Full Bench judgment of the Court, disposed of petitions with a direction to the parties to approach the High Power Committee and even otherwise some of the applicants had approached the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »