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.
Janardan Subajirao Wide Vs. Rangubai Ramchandra Jagdale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR594; 2009(2)MhLj223
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The Petitioner is a original Defendant-Tenant, has challenged the impugned order of Court below whereby, the landlord/Respondents' case of sub-tenancy under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Bombay Rent Act') is confirmed and thereby allowed the landlords' case of eviction on that ground only.2. The lease premises is situated at C.T.S. No. 1873, Bhamburda, Pune, consists of 2 blocks (for short, 'the suit premises'). The suit premises were let out for running a hotel. As averred, accepted by the Court below that the petitioner's have transferred the said property in favour of one Krishna Shetty without permission and consent. It is contended specifically that the Petitioners never parted with the possession of the property. He is very much there and now he is doing business exclusively. Though there is material to show that he had assigned his business in favour of one Krishna Shetty, a deed of p...
Suresh @ Suryakant Ramchandra Chonkar and ors. Vs. Bhikaji Bhagwat Red ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR563; 2009(2)MhLj917
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioners/ original defendants are challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2006 passed by Appeal Bench of Small Causes Court, Mumbai, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in R.A.E. Suit No. 3947/1989 and thereby prayed to dismiss the Suit filed by the respondents/landlords.2. The basic events, as per petitioners, are as under:The original plaintiff Veena Redkar, since deceased, filed R.A.E. Suit No. 3947 of 1989, in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai, against the petitioners for peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises i.e. Block No. 2, on the ground floor of Veena Ninad Building, 4/6, Karelwadi, Mumbai-400 002, on the ground that the petitioners had carried out additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises without her consent and that except petitioner No. 1 other petitioners are not residing in the suit premises and that petitioner No. 1 had acquired alternative accommodation at...
Sharadabai Anandrao Durgule Vs. Ramchandra Manku Pol and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR577; 2009(2)MhLj225
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioner-Landlord-plaintiff being aggrieved by the reversal order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kolhapur whereby the respondents tenant's appeal is allowed and the petitioner's suit for possession is dismissed on all counts i.e. reasonable and bona fide need, greater hardship and the standard rent.2. The petitioner is the owner of the part of the suit bearing Original City Survey No. 512/Kh situated at Kolhapur under a Will executed by one Mr. Baburao Kushappa, the Original owner of the said building. One Mr. Ramchandra Manku Pol, now deceased, was the tenant in the ground floor premises of the said part of the house (for short, 'the suit premises'). The petitioner required the said suit premises for her bona fide use and need and occupation for starting a Kirana shop or a hotel. She is widow. She terminated the tenancy accordingly on 31/7/ 1978. The petitioner filed Suit No. 912 of 1978 for possession of the suit premises. The suit was resisted. T...
Shri Antonio Sequeira Coutinho Pereira Vs. the State of Goa Through th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR131
A.P. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the Notification dated 10th November, 2000 issued by the Government of Goa in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 ('the Act' for short), declaring that the Commission of Inquiry shall cease to exist with effect from 10.11.2000.2. The Government of Goa, by the Notification dated 9th May, 2000, appointed a retired Judge of Bombay High Court at Goa, to be the Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making inquiry in relation to the evacuee property of late Count of Maem under the terms of reference mentioned therein. The terms of reference are reproduced hereinbelow.1. Whether the above Officers while functioning as Custodian of Evacuee Property have:a) failed in their duty under the Act by allowing unauthorised persons to encroach upon the Evacuee property at Maem?b) committed any fraud by not taking any action to remove the encroachers from the Evacuee Property?c) mismana...
Sunil Rameshchandra Kedia Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR14; 2008(111)BomLR327
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 20th November, 2008, passed by Respondent No. 2 - District Deputy Registrar in Appeal preferred by Respondent No. 5 against acceptance of nomination paper of present petitioner for election to the post of Member of Respondent No. 4 A.P.M.C. Khamgaon. Respondent No. 3 is the Election Officer for the said elections which are conducted as per provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as APMC Act) and Maharashtra Agricultural Produce (Agricultural Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as APMC Rules).2. The Respondent No. 1 before this Court is the State Government of Maharashtra. As per the election programme, the elections are scheduled on 14th December, 2008. On 24th November, 2008, it was pointed out to this Court that remedy of filing elect...
Dinkar Indrabhan Kadaskar and ors. Vs. Grampanchayat Through Its Sarpa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR39; 2008(111)BomLR1
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This application is filed for review of order dated 29th September 2003 rendered by this Court, while disposing of First Appeal No. 829/2003 in view of consent terms filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and to direct denovo hearing of the appeal.2. A brief resume of background facts may be stated as follows:There are 3 separate temples of deities Mahadeo, Jagdamba and Vitthal at village Kolhar under Shrirampur Tehsil. There are 3 separate trusts for management of the said temples. A scheme, Under Section 50-A(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, was drawn for management of the Trusts. An application was filed for amalgamation of the three trusts. Consequent upon inquiry, learned Assistant Charity Commissioner directed amalgamation of the said three trusts under caption 'Kolhar Bhagwatipur Devalaya Trust' bearing registration No. A-119. He prepared a scheme in respect of amalgamated Trust. An application was moved by respondent Nos. 5, 6 and one Digamber Kharde for modif...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Samira Fernandes and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2008
Reported in: 2006ACJ2480; 2009(1)BomCR22; 2008(111)BomLR297; 2009(2)MhLj458
N.A. Britto, J.1. The dispute between the parties is as regards the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants (respondents No. 1 to 3 herein) as against a claim for Rs. 25,00,000/-.2. The learned MACT (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) has awarded compensation of Rs. 21,60,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on a sum of Rs. 3,48,896/-(excluding future loss of dependency) from the date of the petition till the entire amount is paid.3. The accident took place on 6/12/2001 between a scooter driven by the deceased and truck No. KA 213/498 driven by respondent No. 4, owned by respondent No. 5 and insured with the appellant herein, who was respondent No. 3, in the claim petition.4. The claim petition was filed by the claimants (respondent nos. 1 to 3) who are the widow and children of the deceased Savio Nigel Fernandes. Claimant No. 1 was 32 years of age, claimant No. 2 was 4 years of age, and claimant No. 3 was 2 years of age.5. The deceased was 32 years of age. The deceas...
Nehru Shikshan Sanstha and the Headmistress, Kamala Nehru Primary Scho ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR1; 2009(2)MhLj195
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petition challenges the order passed by the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal has concluded that the termination of service of the 1st respondent is illegal and has, therefore, set it aside. The 1st respondent has been granted reinstatement w.e.f. 9.7.2004 as an Assistant Teacher with continuity of service and full back wages and other consequential benefits. The grievance of the petitioners in the petition is that the 1st respondent was illegally appointed in service in connivance with one Bharat Oval who was then the headmaster of Kamala Nehru Primary School, Chinchwad, which is run by the 1st petitioner. The petitioners have contended that all the school records showing the 1st respondent's name were fabricated by the 1st respondent in collusion with Bharat Oval in order to assist the 1st respondent in attaining and continuing in employment with the school. It is for this reason the services of the 1st respondent were terminated.2. The facts giving rise t...
Madhav Gansa Wani Deceased Through L.Rs. Pandharinath Hari @ Madhav Wa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR27; 2008(111)BomLR183
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners impugn judgments rendered by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) in Review Petition No. Rev.Trb.C-4/1989 dated 13.7.1990, judgment and order rendered in Appeal No. Rev.Trb.13/87 dated 26.8.1988 and judgment and order rendered by Tahsildar, Erandol in Aadivasi Case No. 278/1976 dated 15.9.1987.2. Originally the petition was filed by deceased Pandharinath and others who are legal representatives of deceased Madhav Gansa Wani. Said Madhav demised during pendency of the petition. The present petitioners are his legal representatives. Respondents are original applicants, who initiated proceedings for restoration of two agricultural lands under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (For short, MRLST Act).3. Admittedly, the Respondents owned agricultural lands bearing Gat No. 40, admeasuring 17 acres and Gat No. 64 admeasuring 26 gunthas situated at village Sakre under Erandol Tahsil (Dist. Jalgao...
Anil Rangnath Chavan and anr. Vs. Meera Shivaji Chavan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR597
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioners have challenged the Order dated 3-12-2007 whereby the application filed by the respondents for maintenance is allowed and the petitioners are directed to pay to the respondents herein Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance from 28-11-2005. Admittedly, the respondents' suit for partition has been decreed and the appeal filed by the respondents is pending. Pending the suit for partition, the petitioners moved this application in the appeal against the order whereby her suit for maintenance was dismissed.2. There are clear averments made that she has no source of income and to maintain herself and her minor daughter she requires certain amount regularly. The Court, in fact, on Exhibit-12 has already passed some order and granted a limited relief, restriding it to the litigation expenses and S.T. fares but no order was passed, as prayed in the present application.3. The finding given by the Court below while rejecting the application is that once suit for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »