Mumbai Court March 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.
The State of Maharashtra, (Notice to Be Served on the Collector), Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR379; 2008(5)BomCR869; (2008)110BOMLR1169; 2008(5)MhLj243
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. By a common judgment and award dated 23rd December, 2005, the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Nashik, disposed of 21 land references made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.). Aggrieved from the enhancement granted by the Court, the State Government has filed the above 21 Appeals. The claimants, upon service, filed 20 cross-objections in those appeals. As all these appeals and cross objections are directed against the same judgment, it would be appropriate to dispose of all these matters by a common judgment. 2. We may notice necessary facts at the very outset. The SLAO issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 17th February, 1994 intending to acquire lands from the revenue estate of village Sanjegaon, Tal. Igatpuri, District Nashik, for a public purpose viz. Mukane Dam Project. In furtherance to the above notification, a declaration under...
Subhadrabai Hiralal Gawali Vs. Sk. Amad S/O Sk. Samshu Musalman,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR111; 2008(3)MhLj605
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is a second appeal at the instance of the defendant. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants. 2. Facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: Plaintiffs are the sons of one Sk. Samshu. Sheikh Samshu died in the year 1950 leaving behind him the two plaintiffs and widow Chandbee. Chandbee had purchased 3.17 gunthas of land out of survey No. 74/2 on 23.02.71 under the registered sale-deed from one Hiralal Gawali. Since then Chandbee was in possession of the suit property. Chandbee died on 19.12.81 at Masod. After the death of Chandbee plaintiffs applied for substitution of their names in place of Chandbee in revenue record. The defendant No. 1 filed an objection to the said mutation. After enquiry Naib Tahsildar recorded the name of defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs had preferred an appeal against the said order which came to be dismissed. The plaintiffs have now preferred an appeal before the Resident Deputy Collector and the same is p...
Anil @ Antya S/O Shriram Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1269
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order of his detention in District Jail, Buldana, made by respondent no.2 on 1.10.2007 under the provisions of The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short the Act) so also the order of confirmation thereof dated 15.11.2007 made by the 1st respondent. 3. Briefly stated, the P.S.O. Police station Buldana initiated a proposal with respondent no.2 for taking action against the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act on the ground that about 20 cognizable and 10 non- cognizable offences were registered against the petitioner and the petitioner is a violent dreaded criminal in the habit of assaulting common people and creating terror. The last offence that was indicated as a prejudicial activity was committed by him on 18.4.2007 in Crime No.84 of 2007 under Section 392 of ...
Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit Through Its Manager, K ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1221; 2008(3)MhLj732
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 2. This is an application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 5.1.2007 made by the J.M.F.C. Hinganghat in Summary Criminal Case No. 5120 of 2002. 3. In support of the present application as well as appeal against acquittal preferred by the applicant/ appellant, Mr.Apurv De argued that the learned trial Court committed an error in acquitting the respondent/accused for extraneous reasons and that there was a legally enforceable liability against the respondent/accused which was not discharged by him and, on the contrary, the cheque given by him had bounced. Admittedly there was dishonour of cheque which was given to the appellant and that in fact was not disputed. According to Mr.De, the fact that the loan was disbursed to the respondent/accused by the applicant/credit society is not in dispute so also the agreement regarding interest at rest payable thereon and in the wake of said agreement it ...
Shree Ostwal Builders Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Companies ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR529; 2008(3)BomCR36; (2008)110BOMLR1209; 2008(4)MhLj404
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The challenge in these two cases, is to the public tender issued by the Government on 20-5-2007 in so far as it relates to inviting tenders by invoking the Swiss Challenge Method. 2. As the question raised in these two cases are common, both the cases are admitted, heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. Swiss Challenge Method is a method invoked by the Government with a view to accelerate rapid growth of the housing sector in the State by inducting private entrepreneur through public private partnership (PPP). In view of the resource crunch, the Government considers it prudent to enter into joint venture agreements with private parties for development of the Government lands by invoking the Swiss Challenge Method. Under this method, any person/firm/association/private developer can approach the public authorities with his innovative proposal for development of the Government lands. The said proposal is scrutinized and if found to be technically a...
Sonabai Kerappa Katkar and ors. Vs. Mohamad Jilani Mohmad Wahid Shaikh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR323; 2009(1)BomCR431; 2008(5)MhLj411
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition challenges the order passed by the Tribunal refusing to restore the claim application. Petitioner No.1 is the mother of the deceased who met with a fatal accident. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are his children. The wife of the deceased has also died. The deceased was wounded fatally on 14.2.1983 in an accident involving a truck. The claim application was filed by the petitioners on 11.8.1983. The petitioners also filed an application under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, claiming 15000/-as no fault liability. The total claim that the petitioners sought was Rs.1 lakh.2. On 28.6.1985, the application filed under Section 92A of the Act was allowed and the petitioners were directed to pay Rs.15000/- as no fault liability to the respondents.3. The claim application was then taken up for hearing. The petitioners were assured by their advocate that he would attend to the matter. It appears that adjournments were sought by the petitioners advocate an...
Bjranglal Eriwal and ors. Vs. Sagarmal Chunilal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR887; (2008)110BOMLR1252
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Motion for interim relief arises in a suit which has been instituted principally to enforce the obligation of the developer under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 ('the Act'). Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs has, at the present stage, urged submissions in support of prayer Clauses (c), (d) and (e) of the Motion by which an order of injunction has been sought: (i) Restraining the First Defendant from putting up any additional construction, horizontally or vertically in the building in question, contrary to the layout and the sanctioned plan without the specific consent of the Plaintiffs under Section 7 of the Act; (ii) Restraining the First Defendant from using, selling and disposing of or creating third party rights or interests in the flat constructed on the 18th Floor or any other upper floors to be constructed; and (iii) Restraining the Third Defendant - the Municipal Corporation, from approving any amendment to the lay out and build...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Official Liquidator of Alpio Finance Ltd. (In Liqui ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas1(Bom); 2008(6)MhLj457; [2008]85SCL354(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This Chamber Summons has been taken out by the applicants who are not parties to the suit. The applicants have sought an order directing that the action on the part of the Court receiver in taking physical possession of the property in dispute is contrary to an order dated 13-4-2006 passed by this Court and is therefore null and void and not binding on the applicants. In fact what the applicants actually seek is an order setting aside the order dated 13-4-2006 on the ground that the applicants were in actual physical possession of the said property pursuant to their having purchased the same as more particularly stated hereafter. It was agreed by the parties that the prayer in the chamber summons would be so construed and that it is not necessary for the applicants to amend the prayer to this effect.2. The suit is filed by the plaintiff as a trustee for the holders of the bonds issued by the defendants inter alia to recover as sum of about Rs. 45 crores with interes...
Miten S/O Shyamsunder Mohota (Goidani) and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR507; 2008(6)BomCR124; 2008(5)MhLj27
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Simple but a pertinent question of law challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') insofar as it relates to the prerequisite period of separation for one year for institution of petition under Section 13B of the Act, as mandatory and also on the ground that it is arbitrary and has no nexus to the object of the said provision, arises in this petition.2. The petitioner No. 1 was married to the petitioner No. 2 on 29th April, 2007, according to Hindu rites and customs. The marriage between the parties was registered in accordance with law. After marriage, the parties cohabited at Bombay till 2nd August, 2007 when matrimonial differences arose between the parties. According to them, the parties realized that they were not suitable to each other, their marriage had irretrievably broken down and there was no possibility of saving the marriage. There are no issues from the wedlo...
The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division No. 1 Vs. Ra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR434; (2008)110BOMLR1061; [2008(118)FLR433]
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act by the original non applicant No. 1. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: One Abdul Rahuf was working as a labourer with non applicant No. 3 the contractor. Non applicant No. 3 contractor had undertaken a contract for repairs to the premises owned by the non applicant No. 2. The contract was awarded by non applicant No. 1 to non applicant No. 3. Abdul Rahuf met with an accident while he was repairing the said shutter in the premises belonging to non applicant No. 2. He was getting salary of Rs.2400/-per month. The claimants who are the heirs of the deceased claim compensation of Rs. 2,07,980/-. Application was opposed by the non applicants 1 to 4. Non applicant No. 1 and 2 both denied that they have awarded any contract to non applicant No. 3 to carry out repairs to the shutters. They also denied that the deceased was permanent employee and that he was getting Rs. 2400/-P. M. as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »