Mumbai Court February 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.
Smt. Gayabai Wd/O Sakharam Jambhulkar and ors. Vs. Gopal Sakharam Jamb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR641; (2008)110BOMLR1195; 2008(4)MhLj286
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal and another appeal No. 558 of 2004 between same parties were to be heard and decided together. Accordingly, today I have completed hearing in both the appeals and by separate order, because of limited nature of controversy involved therein, second appeal No. 558 of 2004 has been disposed of. Though in that appeal, it has been held that Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act protected deceased Sakharam who has executed Will of his joint undivided family property, still the Will has not been accepted to be legal and valid, and therefore, judgment and decree of lower appellate Court has been maintained. 2. This second appeal is filed by original plaintiffs in regular civil suit No. 61 of 1996. Suit filed by them was for declaration, partition and separate possession. Trial Court decreed the suit partly and the original defendants then filed regular civil appeal No. 101 of 2001 on 20/8/2004. First Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Bhandara has partly al...
Balkrishnan Thirumalai Nadar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2125
D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this Criminal Revision Application, the applicant challenges his conviction under Section 465, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and as also the sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed on him by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpri and confirmed by the Sessions Court, Pune.2. The prosecution case in brief is as under- Aplicant is the brother-in-law (sister's husband) of Anusaya Thomas, the original complainant. By a sale-deed dated 17th November 1989 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Haveli, district Pune the complainant purchased the land bearing Survey No. 51/1/58 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said land') from Mr. Vaman Gangurde and another for Rs.40,000/-. After the purchase, name of the complainant was recorded as an owner in the record of rights, maintained by the Talathi. By a sale deed dated 10-7-198 registered in the office of sub-registrar Haveli, entered at Sr. No. 4888, purportedly executed by the complainant, sa...
Kawarsingh S/O Kishansingh Bainade Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR650; 2008(2)MhLj802
1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questions the correctness of the findings recorded by the respondent Scrutiny Committee in its Judgment dated 21-2-2006 invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to 'Rajput Bhamta', Vimukta Jati.2. The petitioner had contested the election of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation from a Ward which was reserved for Vimukta Jati. The petitioner on the strength of the certificate issued to him, contested the election and was declared as elected as Councillor. The claim of the petitioner as belonging to 'Rajput Bhamta' caste, as per the procedure came to be referred to the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner in support of his claim as belonging to 'Rajput Bhamta' caste has tendered before the Committee about 15 documents. The documents submitted by the petitioner are enlisted in the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The main plank on which the petitioner has based his claim of 'Rajput Bhamta' caste are:(i) The ...
Sharadchandra Vasant Chitnis Vs. Mrs. Neela Ashok Korde and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR676; 2008(4)MhLj873
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The revision application is filed by the original plaintiffs while the contempt petition is filed by the original defendant. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be addressed by their original title.2. Admitted facts are that the plaintiffs are the landlords of the suit premises admeasuring 629 sq.ft on the ground floor of the Korde House situated at Thane. The defendant was admittedly the tenant in the suit premises. The building was more than 100 years old and was in dilapidated condition. The Municipal Corporation had issued a notice for demolition of the said building on the ground that it was in dilapidated condition and it was dangerous for the human life to continue the same. The plaintiffs issued notice to the defendant terminating the tenancy on two grounds, firstly, that the plaintiffs were residing in a small house, which was not sufficient for their requirements. Their son had completed M.B.B.S. and was doing post-graduation for M.D. He was marrie...
SumikIn Bussan International (Hong Kong) Ltd. Vs. King Shing Enterpris ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR464
Vazifdar S.J., J.1. This is the second defendant's chamber summons for dismissal of the above Execution Application and for revocation of an order dated 8.12.2003 granting leave under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure passed in Chamber Summons No. 777 of 2003 taken out in the above execution application. The second defendant has also sought the setting aside of the warrant of attachment dated 12.1.2004 and the warrant of sale dated 24.5.2004.2. The High Court of Hong Kong Special Administrative Regional Court of First Instance passed in favour of the plaintiff a judgment and decree dated 31.5.2002 for a sum of US $ 618,331.26 and interest thereon at the rate of 1% above the US prime rate from 18.1.2001 till payment and for costs. It is common ground that the decree has become final.3. As stated above by an order dated 8.12.2003, passed in Chamber Summons No. 777 of 2003, the learned Judge granted leave under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned ...
Indian Bank Through Asstt. General Manager Vs. Baba Sakharam Kharbade ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR812]; (2009)ILLJ559Bom
ORDER1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The appellant wanted to challenge the order of the Controlling Authority dated July 6, 2006 directing payment of gratuity to respondent No. 1. However, the appeal was preferred beyond 120 days from the date of order. Hence the appellate authority did not entertain the appeal. The learned single Judge held that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in preferring the appeal beyond 120 days. In J.L. Morrison India Ltd. Mumbai v. Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai : (2008)ILLJ775Bom , the Division Bench of this Court held that the appellate authority under Gratuity Act cannot entertain appeal beyond 120 days from the date of receipt of the order and that resort to Section 5 of the Limitation Act is impermissible. In view of this clear position of law, we see no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed....
Citizen Forum Through Its Secretary Shri Rajiv S/O Gajanan Jagtap, Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR598; 2008LC(BOM)309
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3701/2007, Shri Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5100/2007, Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5855/2007, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1 State, Shri Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India with Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition Nos. 3701/2007 and 5855/2007 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 5100/2007, and Shri Arun Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3701/2007, states that petitioners do not want to press prayer Clauses (2) and (3) in the writ petition. In view of the said statement of learned Counsel Shri Kilor, Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the inter...
Miss Trupti Mohan Narkar Vs. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR636; 2008(2)BomCR520
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The petitioner was a student of Std. XII, who appeared for HSC examination in March 2005. On the 4th day of the examination, which was on 5.3.2005, the petitioner claimed a writer to write her examination paper of Physics II with permission from the Chief Conductor of the examination, one Mr. T.B. Mane at the Examination Centre, upon a Medical Certificate of one Dr. Sudhir Shinde, countersigned by the Medical Superintendent of the local rural hospital. The petitioner's father applied for the writer on her behalf by his letter dated 5.3.2005 addressed to the Conductor of the Centre of the examination annexing the doctor's certificate also dated 5.3.2005. The medical certificate showed that the petitioner had 'high grade temp with vomitting with vertigo and right shoulder pain.' It also showed history of fall due to vertigo for which she had pain in her right shoulder. Upon such a certificate she was allowed the use of a writer.2. The petitioner was issued a show cause...
Smt. Zarinabi W/O Abdul Amir Vs. Smt. Shamim Sultana W/O Qamar Ali Thr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR585; (2008)110BOMLR723; 2008(4)MhLj594
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendant against the concurrent findings. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. Plaintiff is the daughter of one Mohammad Sabir while the defendant No. 1 is mother of the plaintiff and ex-wife of deceased Mohammad Sabir. Deceased Mohd.Sabir was serving as a driver in the State Transport Corporation. He died on 15/12/1985. The plaintiff is the only child born to defendant No. 1 from Mohd.Sabir. The plaintiff was married in the year 1984 during the life time of Mohd.Sabir. Mohd.Sabir died on 15/12/1985 and soon thereafter i.e. on 3/9/1986, defendant No. 1 entered into a marriage with one Abdul Latif.3. Mohd. Sabir was earning Rs. 1000/- per month as a salary on an average. Mohd. Sabir agreed to purchase a plot from one Abdul Rahim s/o Sk. Ibrahim. There was an agreement of sale on 30/12/1977. Mohd.Sabir had paid entire consideration to Abdul Rahim on ...
Shri Barku Motiram Patil Vs. Shri Bhavarao Motiram Patil,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR668; 2008(3)MhLj864
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. Petitioner is challenging the order passed below Exh.40 allowing plaintiff's application for amendment for addition of defendants who are co-sharers.3. The ground of challenge is that:(a) The objection as to non-joinder was raised much earlier but it was connived at.(b) The reason assigned towards delay is false.(c) The plaintiff is not diligent.(d) The plaintiff has filed application after hearing has commenced and as per amended Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, such belated application should not be allowed.4. Admittedly suit is for partition of joint family property and objection is that all other co-sharers are not arrayed as defendants.5. Proper parties is a legal matter. Any defect in this regard is attributable to legal advise. Pleadings & applications are drafted by lawyers who knows the record. Any statement contained in the application which does not confirm to record therefore unless con...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »