Mumbai Court June 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.
Malini V. Parab @ Prabhu and anr. Vs. Prafullakumar R. Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR223; 2008(6)BomCR293; 2008(5)MhLj633
N.A. Britto, J.1. The plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of agreement dated 13-1-1990 has been decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division at Quepem by Judgment/Decree dated 24-2-1997. Hence this appeal by the defendants.2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said civil suit. Some admitted facts are required to be stated to dispose of this appeal.3. The defendants are owners of a property admeasuring 584 sq. metres surveyed under No. 128 of Curchorem Village in which they constructed a house. The said plot was purchased by the defendant No. 1 earlier by Deed of Sale dated 22-2-1982. By virtue of agreement dated 13-1-1990, rectified by another agreement dated 22-2-1990, the defendant No. 1 (since expired and now represented by his legal representatives) entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs. It is necessary to refer to some of the clauses of the said agreement. By virtue of Clauses (1) and (2), the sui...
Bhanumati Dayaram Mhatre Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2008
Reported in: 2010ACJ479; AIR2008Bom196; 2008(6)BomCR311; 2008(5)MhLj757
D.G. Karnik, J.1. The petitioner is an old lady aged more than 71 years of age. Her son Kushal had taken out a life insurance policy bearing No. 910278358 for a term of 25 years with a small assured sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The policy was to mature in February, 2014. Unfortunately, Kushal has been missing since 13th November, 1995 and has not been heard of since then. An intimation about Kushal's missing was served on the respondent - Life Insurance Corporation of India by the petitioner's husband vide his letter dated 8th August, 1996. By its reply dated 29th August, 1996, the respondent informed the petitioner's husband, who has since died, to take up the matter with the police and to continue to pay the insurance premium in respect of the policy to keep it alive. The respondent also informed the petitioner's husband that the claim under the policy can be settled only after expiry of 7 years from the date of Kushal's missing. The petitioner's husband accordingly continued to pay the prem...
Gopal Ramvilas Gattani Vs. Sheshrao Pundlik Hivarkar by Lrs. Dewababai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj231
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is a second appeal by the original plaintiff. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:Respondent-defendant is the owner of the Field Survey No. 14/2 measuring 1 Hectare 35 Ares of village Hiwra Khurd. Defendant-respondent is the exclusive owner of the suit property. On 24-6-1989 the defendant entered into a contract of sale of the suit property with the plaintiff. Price of the suit property was settled at Rs. 45,000/-. Plaintiff paid Rs. 40,000/- to the defendant-respondent as earnest. It was agreed that balance of consideration of Rs. 5000/-would be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The sale deed was to be executed on 1-1-1990 and the defendant was to bear the expenses of registration of the sale deed. The defendant delivered the possession to the plaintiff of the suit property and plaintiff is in cultivating possession since then. On 29-12-1989 defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him to extend the date of execution of th...
Flemingo Duty-free Shop Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Vivek S. Bhatt Vs. Union of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR663; (2008)110BOMLR1730
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the process adopted by the Respondent No. 3 beginning with the Expression of Interest and followed by issuance of Request for Proposal and culminating in the award of contract initially to Respondent No. 4 and then to the Respondent No. 5. 2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office in New Mumbai. According to the Petitioner No. 1, it is engaged in the business of operating and running duty Free Retail Outlets in International Airports in India. The Respondent No. 1 is the union of India and the Respondent No. 2 is Airports Authority of India constituted under Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. According to the Petitioners, the Respondent No. 2 is owned and controlled by the Respondent No. 1. The International Airport at Mumbai i.e. Chhatrapati Shivaji International...
Mr. Sanjay Pahariya Vs. Ms. Smruti Pahariya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)BomCR556; (2008)110BOMLR1950; 2008(5)MhLj455
Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith.2. The appellant is original petitioner 2husband and the respondent is original petitioner 1wife in M.J. Petition No.F619 of 2007. For convenience, we shall refer to the appellant as 'the husband' and the respondent as 'the wife'. They filed the aforesaid petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the said Act') in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. 3. The case of the husband and the wife, as stated in the petition, is that they are Hindus and are governed by the provisions of the said Act. They got married on 5/3/1993 at Mumbai as per Hindu Vedic rites. The said marriage was registered with the Registrar of Marriages. The couple has two sons viz. Veer and Shikhar born on 1/2/1995 and 3/4/1997 respectively. After marriage, they resided together in Flat No. 601, 2nd floor, Dinath Court, Sir Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mu...
Mahadu Appa Wanjole Vs. Laxman Veerappa Wanjole and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR206; 2008(5)MhLj680
S.S. Shinde, J.1. This matter was on board under the caption of Final Hearing. When the matter was called out for final hearing at 3.15 p.m. on 22nd April, 2008, nobody appeared for the respondents to represent them. Mr. Khandeparkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, was present. He argued the matter at length till 5.00 p.m. on 22nd April, 2008.On 22nd April, 2008 itself, Mr. Khandeparkar for the appellant was requested to communicate to the advocate for the respondents the fact that the matter is fixed for final hearing and remained part heard, to be heard on 23rd April, 2008. On 23rd April, 2008, Mr. Khandeparkar for the appellant informed me that accordingly he intimated the said fact to the respondents' advocate through his colleague advocate Mr. Kalake and Mr. Kalake informed him that a message was given to the advocate for the respondents that the matter is fixed for final hearing on 23rd April, 2008. But nobody appeared for the respondents on 23rd April, 2008.2. ...
Mohan Govind Naik Since Deceased Represented by Lrs. Laxmi Mohan Naik ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR838; 2008(6)MhLj237
N.A. Britto, J.1. Heard Shri Pangam, the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants and Shri E. Afonso, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 2.2. The appellant (since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs) filed a Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,96,900/- which Claim Petition came to be dismissed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by judgment dated 12-12-1996.3. The claim petition was filed against the driver and owner and the Insurer of the rickshaw that is to say the respondent No. 1 and 2 herein and the driver/owner and the Insurer of the motor cycle that is to say respondents No. 3 and 4 herein.4. The rickshaw was registered under No. GDZ-1262 and motor cycle was registered under No. GDH-7091.5. The case of the claimant was that on 8-11-1988 at about 4.30 a.m., the claimant and his friend Ramesh Korajkar were going in the said rickshaw which was being driven on the proper side of the ro...
Bhimraj Deepchand Solanki Vs. Hansaben P. Mehta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR407; 2008(6)MhLj689
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 689 of 1998 on 29-11-1999 setting aside the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade rejecting the discharge application filed by the accused.The petitioner who is the complainant had filed complaint bearing No. 282/S/1993 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The complainant alleged that certain cheques issued by the respondents had been dishonoured as his bankers informed him that the respondents had stopped payment of the cheques. A notice was issued by the petitioner's advocate on 1-6-1992 calling upon the accused to pay the amount due under the dishonoured cheques within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. It appears that although the notice sent by the registered post was returned with an endorsement 'not claimed', the notice sent Under Certificate of Posting was received by the respond...
Mohan Govind Naik (Deceased) Through L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Sudhakar V. Gu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2072
N.A. Britto, J.1. Heard Mr. Pangam, the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants and Mr. E. Afonso, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 2.2. The appellant (since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs) filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Margao, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,96,900, which claim petition came to be dismissed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by judgment dated 12.12.1996.3. The claim petition was filed againstthe driver and owner and the insurer of the rickshaw that is to say the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein and the driver/owner and the insurer of the motor cycle that is to say respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein.4. The rickshaw was registered under No. GDZ 1262 and motor cycle was registered under No. GDH 7091.5. The case of the claimant was that on 8.11.1988 at about 4.30 a.m., the claimant and his friend Ramesh Korajkar were going in the said rickshaw which was being driven on the proper side of the...
Sharad Yashwant Joshi and Smt. Usha Sharad Joshi Vs. Mohamed Yusuf Nas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2008
Reported in: 2010ACJ256; 2008(6)ALLMR307; 2008(5)BomCR275; 2008(5)MhLj415
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This is a first Appeal filed by the Appellants wherein the basic submission is that though by amendment after the death of the claimant who was injured due to rash and negligent driving of the matador, as alleged within a six month succumbed to death and thereby his L.Rs., being the parents, the applicants, prayed for additional compensation though it was initially for the compensation for bodily injury. 2. The only issue which was framed was about the compensation for the bodily injury. There is no dispute, as recorded also in para 12, that the accident took place in the month of October-1982 and after six months in the month of April-1983 Ravindra died. The Court has observed that it is doubtful that Ravindra died due to injury received in the Motor Accident. To that the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that there is medical evidence on record to show that during this period most of the time the claimant was hospitalized and he was under cont...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »