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.
Bhagwan S/O Ganpat Mapari Vs. Appa S/O Kisan Mapari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR190; 2008(3)BomCR690
P.V. Kakade, J.1. Heard Mr. Gangapurwala, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Gore, Advocate for the sole respondent. 2. In view of the facts and circumstances, the appeal is admitted and taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties.3. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order passed by Adhoc District Judge, Aurangabad, dated 13.8.2007, dismissing the present appellants appeal and confirming the order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Paithan, whereby document at Exhibit 18 was stated as a compromise and decree was directed to be passed as per Exhibit 18 and map filed along with Exhibit 25, whereby defendant was also directed to hand over possession of 51 Ares land to the plaintiff as shown by D.I.L.R.4. As can be seen from the record, Survey No. 6, Hissa No. 2 of village Kausa, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad is a subject matter involved in the suit. There was dispute between the parties alleging that the defendant had encroached over the suit property...
Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Vi (R and B) and Deputy Collector and Lao V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj812
N.A. Britto, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 21/11/1998 of the learned District Judge, Margao, enhancing the compensation payable to the Respondents from Rs. 33/-to Rs. 105/-per sq. mt. as against the claim of Respondents for Rs. 500/- per sq. mt. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off the appeal. 2. By notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act', for short), published on Gazette dated 7/08/1986, the Government acquired a strip of land of about 10 mts. width, admeasuring 510 sq. mts. of Chalta No. 16 and 24 of P.T. Sheet No. 193 belonging to the Respondents for the purpose of construction of new road at Marlem and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs. 33/- per sq. mt. 3. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the Respondents preferred a reference before the District Court and in support of their claim in the reference, the Respondents relied on an award dated 20/11/1988-Exhib...
Shri Francis Milton KevIn Noronha Alias Francis Noronha Vs. Aloma Ana ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR218; 2008(2)MhLj805
N.A. Britto, J.1. Challenge in this petition is to the Order dated 6-1-2007 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, by which the son of the Petitioner and the Respondent has been granted maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month. 2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner and the Respondent after having known each other on friendly terms got married on 1-5-1993 and of the said marriage they have a son by name James, born in the year 1988 and who presently studies in Std. IVth. 3. The Respondent-wife on or about 13-5-2002 filed a suit for divorce, inter alia, on the ground of ill-treatment under Article 4(4) of the Law of Divorce and by a separate application dated 23-7-2002 sought maintenance for herself and for the said son. The learned trial Court by the impugned Order dated 6-1-2007 was pleased to allow the said application and order the payment of maintenance, as aforesaid, to be paid on 5th of every succeeding month. As against the said Order the Petitioner-husband filed the prese...
Peninsula Land Limited (Earlier Known as Morarjee Realities Ltd.,) a C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Bom)616; [2008]307ITR183(Bom)
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard both sides. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith and parties heard for final disposal.2. This is a Writ Petition filed by Peninsula Land Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') seeking to quash and set aside the orders dated 22.2.2007 and 7.9.2007 passed by the respondents under Sections 154 and 264 of the Act respectively for the assessment year 1994-95 in so far as they deny the petitioners right to set-off unabsorbed depreciation.3. The facts of the case as set out by the petitioner in his petition are as follows : (a) In respect of the assessment year 1992-93, the petitioner filed a return of income on 20th January 1993 and a revised return on 31st December 1994 in which it claimed that it was entitled to a set off of the brought forward losses of Devangere Cotton Mills Limited which was merged with the petitioner w.e.f.1st July 1992. Respondent No. 2 passed an assessment order dated 31st March 1995 under Section 143(3) of the Act in...
Bhausaheb Bapurao Gavhane Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 22 ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR779; 2008(4)BomCR847; 2008(3)MhLj402
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioner is a resident of village Koregaon Bhima, Taluka Shirur, District Pune. The petitioner's case is that the 1st respondent i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Pune ('S.L.A.O.' for convenience) initiated acquisition proceedings to acquire land admeasuring 38 Ares out of Gat No. 1422 and 43 Ares out of Gat No. 660 situated at Mouje Koregaon Bhima, Taluka Shirur, Pune. The acquisition proceedings were initiated for the purposes of resettlement of Chaskaman Project affected persons.2. According to the petitioner, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ('the said Act' for short) is dated 24-7-1988. It was published in the Government Gazette on 8-9-1988. As per the said notification, land bearing Gat No. 1422, area admeasuring 80 Ares was notified for the purpose of acquisition. According to the petitioner no individual notice was given to the petitioner, however, his signature in token of having received the notice was taken. Accordin...
Savitridevi Virendrasingh Bhadoria Vs. Shashikant Tilakdhari Jha and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj232
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The respondents, who are original plaintiffs, had filed R.A.E. Suit No. 96/326 of 1982 against the defendant who is the applicant before this Court, for eviction from the suit premises on several grounds. It was contended that the suit shop No. 2 situated at Municipal R Ward No. 4648 (I)-79 Sharada Estate, L.T. Road, Borivali (West) Mumbai-92 belonged to the plaintiffs. The defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises. She was irregular in payment of rent and has fallen in arrears of rent since 1st March, 1978. The agreed rent was Rs. 35/-. On 6th September, 1980 a notice was issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant through their advocate terminating the tenancy and also calling upon the defendant to pay the amount of Rs. 1045.22 towards arrears of rent with permitted increases. The said notice was served but, the defendant failed to comply with the same and to make the payment of arrears of rent and the permitted increases. On 25th January, 1982 the plain...
Suryakant Babulal Mehta, Proprietor of Sujag International Vs. Shree S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR658; [2008]143CompCas307(Bom)
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,49,805=91 Ps. with further interest on Rs.1,13,747=87 Ps. @ 21% per annum till repayment of the amount. An incidental relief is claimed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff be permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited by the defendant with the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court with interest accrued thereon towards the decree that may be passed in the present suit.2. The plaintiff asserts that between 19th April 1978 and 6th November 1978 the plaintiff sold, delivered and supplied goods to the defendant under eighteen different invoices from time to time as per the orders placed by the defendant in that behalf. According to the plaintiff, the value of the goods supplied to the defendant was in the sum of Rs.4,34,510=87 Ps. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant, did not raise any dispute regarding quality, quantity or price of the goods supplied. In fact, the defendant made part payment from tim...
Dr. Razia Bano Vs. Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR453
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.2. The appellant before this Court is the original plaintiff. According to the appellant, she had purchased the suit premises being suit shop No. 1 from one Anand Patil on 9.11.1994. The said Anand Patil had purchased the suit premises from one Bazirao Shripat Thorat, who was original allottee. On 21.9.2007, two person from the office of the defendant/Municipal Corporation approached the suit premises and asked the brother and sister of the plaintiff to demolish the suit premises. According to the plaintiff, no notice was served by the defendant to the plaintiff and the defendant is intending to demolish the suit premises without following due process of law. With this contention, she filed suit seeking to restrain the defendant from taking any action without due process of law till decision of the suit. She also took out notice of motion for temporary injunction of the same nature. The defendant contested the notice of motion...
Abdul Rashid Khan Vs. Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR711; 2008(3)MhLj842
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.2. The appellant before this Court is the original plaintiff. According to the appellant, he had purchased the suit premises being suit shop No. 3 from one Mahendra Thakur on 24.01.1995. The said Mahendra Thakur had purchased the suit premises from one Bazirao Shripat Thorat, who was original allottee. On 21.9.2007, two person from the office of the defendant/ Municipal Corporation approached the suit premises and asked the brother and sister of the plaintiff to demolish the suit premises. According to the plaintiff, no notice was served by the defendant to the plaintiff and the defendant is intending to demolish the suit premises without following due process of law. With this contention, he filed suit seeking to restrain the defendant from taking any action without due process of law till decision of the suit. He also took out notice of motion for temporary injunction of the same nature. The defendant contested the notice of...
United India Fire and General Insurance Company Limited Vs. the Amrava ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR183(Bom); 2008(4)MhLj615
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Amravati, whereby he passed a decree in terms of the award passed by the Arbitrator. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows The appellant is an Insurance Company and the respondent is a Co-operative Bank. The respondent-bank entered into a contract of insurance with the appellant. Insurance Company for a period of one year commencing from 1st July, 1976 to 1st July, 1977. The total sum insured was Rs. 6,00,000/-(basic cover) in addition to Rs. 9,00,000/-. The appellant -insurance company issued a policy in favour of the respondent. The branch at Dhamangaon was also included in the contract. It was agreed that there will be a fixed cash in hand limit of Rs. 4,00,000/-maximum and Rs. 2,00,000/-minimum. The names of the employees working at Dhamangaon were also communicated to the Company. On 28/2/1977, Special Auditor of the bank carried out an audit of the Dhamangaon Branch. It w...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »