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.
Sardar Anandrao Madhavrao Raste (Since Deceased Through Newly Appointe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR400; 2009(1)BomCR271; (2008)110BOMLR1981; 2008(5)MhLj284
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition is directed against the Judgment and Order rendered by the Charity Commissioner at Mumbai on 13/6/1986 thereby allowing the application filed under Section 36(2) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (the Act for short). The relevant facts leading to this petition would be briefly stated as under:The land in old City Survey No. 101 (new City Survey No. 5873) at Panchvati, District Nasik admeasuring 1 Acre and 3 Gunthas along with structures thereon belongs to Shri Balkrishna Prabhudeo Panchwati Trust, which is registered under the Act and the petitioner No. 1 claimed to be the sole trustee of the said trust. Shri Thakkar Vagji Ramdas Seth Bhati was tenant in respect of Survey No. 101 and Mr. Thakkar Vagji filed R.C.S. No. 97 of 1920 against the trust. The suit was compromised and accordingly a compromise decree was passed in 1921. As a result, Vagji was to retain his possession for 50 years from the year 1921 to 1971 and on annual rent of Rs. 90/- and...
Pukhrambham Surchandsingh Ibohan Singh Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3245
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellant-orig.accused has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.12.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Thane in Special Sessions Case No. 93 of 2002. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant-orig.accused for the offence punishable under Sections 20 & 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter called as NDPS Act) and sentenced him to suffer RI for 14 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2 lakhs, in default, RI for three years. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:PI Ghule (PW-4) attached with Crime Branch, Thane received reliable information from a informant that on 13.12.2001 one Manipuri person wearing a faint green coloured half T-Shirt, black pant and brown shoes is likely to arrive at Mumbra and the polythene bag held by him contains cocaine. Necessary formalities under Section 42(2) were complied with and the raidin...
Karim Hussainali Wajawalla and Husainali Wajawalla Vs. OrigIn Informat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR301; (2008)110BOMLR2063; 2008(4)MhLj937
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd April, 2002, passed in Summons for Judgment No. 1408 of 1999 in Summary Suit No. 5511 of 1999. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge granted Summons for Judgment in favour of the original plaintiffs and the suit was decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the suit. 2. The respondentsplaintiffs instituted the aforesaid Summary Suit on the ground that the first defendant was appointed as a Software Engineer in GradeII cadre by the plaintiffs by issuing appointment letter. The first defendant was put on probation period for six months. During the period of probation, both the parties had an option to terminate the services of first defendant by giving one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof. After commencement of the service, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 entered into contract with the plaintiffs and as per the said contract, the plaintiffs were to send the first defendant for trai...
V.M. Salgaocar and Brothers Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2008
Reported in: 2006ACJ2452; 2008(5)ALLMR629; 2008(6)BomCR231
1. The petitioners have challenged the letters dated 3/11/1998, calling upon them to register the equipment owned by them as 'motor vehicles' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioners thus dispute the classification of their mining machineries as vehicles. 2. The machineries in question are poclains, ripper dozers and drill masters, which are used by the petitioners at their mining sites for different purposes such as excavation, transporting from one place to another and other allied operations, but within the area of the mining leases. These vehicles do not go on the roads. The machineries in question are used for performing tasks like ripping and excavating the mine face for extraction of iron ore, dozing and levelling and loading of iron ore extracted into the dumpers. There is no dispute that none of these machineries are fitted with rubber tyres pneumatic or otherwise and are only fitted with chain plates tracks which are also known as caterpillar tracks. It is the peti...
Manmit Kaur Gandhi and anr. Vs. Budh Singh Anand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR341; 2009(1)BomCR225; 2008(5)MhLj14
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge dated 13th June, 2002 in Misc. Petition No. 75 of 1999. The said petition was preferred by the present appellants for revocation of letters of administration of the last will of late Sardar Harbhajan Singh granted to one Mrs. Veeranwali Budhsingh Anand dated 6th November, 1989. The appellants herein preferred the said application on the ground that they are the daughters of deceased Sardar Harbhajan Singh and under the Will of their father, they have not received any benefit. It is their case that the said Will is made under suspicious circumstances and that the letter of administration obtained by their grandmother is void, illegal and deserves to be set aside.2. The said application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds. The respondents took out a Notice of Motion being Notice of Motion No. 1383 of 2000 on the ground that the appellants herein have no right to mo...
Krishnakumar Vithalrao Jamadar Vs. Kamalkishore Balkisan Malani and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj174
S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. The petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murtizapur, in Summary Criminal Case No. 585/04, dated 11-7-2007, by which he dismissed the application of the petitioner for dropping the proceedings against him, in complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed by the respondent.3. Facts leading to the petition, can be stated in nutshell; thus:The respondent/complainant has filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, bearing Summary Criminal Case No. 585/2004 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murtizapur. When the proceedings were fixed for filing the affidavit in the nature of evidence, the petitioner filed an application for dropping the proceedings against him under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prayer therein reads thus:It is, therefore, p...
Prakash J. Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (a Corpora ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR775; (2008)110BOMLR2034
S.S. Shinde, J.1. This appeal is filed by the original Plaintiff/Appellant herein against the order and Judgment dated 27th September, 2000 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay in L.C. Suit No. 2715 of 1991. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under :On 10th December, 1990 Junior Engineer working with P/North ward of the Respondent Corporation detected unauthorised construction of a structure admeasuring 34' X 25' having Brick Masonary Walls with cement plaster, wooden doors windows and flagged stone roofing at Master Wadi Marg, Mudha Road, Opp.Amrut Baug, Malad West, Mumbai - 64.3. After submitting inspection report a notice under Section 351 of the MMC Act bearing No.WOP/N/351/23/MWS dated 11th January, 1991 was issued under the signature of Deputy Municipal Commissioner (hereinafter called Dy. M.C. in short) and was served upon Shri J.T. Shah on 11th January, 1991. The Suit structure was described in the said notice and location sketch was also given on the reverse of i...
Sahakari Bank Karmachari Sangh Vs. the District Deputy Registrar, Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)BomCR569; (2008)110BOMLR1913; 2008(6)MhLj118
Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. The petitionerunion is a registered trade union (for convenience, 'the petitioner or the petitionerunion'). It claims to be a representative union in the Pandharpur Urban Coop. Bank Ltd. respondent 3 herein (for convenience, 'the said bank') for the local areas of Pandharpur Taluka under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, (for short, 'the Bombay Act'). Respondent 1 is the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Solapur District. He is also an Election Officer. His notification is impugned in this petition. Respondent 2 is the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies of Solapur District, who was the Election Officer in the election of the Board of Directors of the said bank held by respondent 1. The said bank is a Cooperative Bank registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the MCS Act'). 3. The case of the petitionerunion is t...
Jaywantrao Balawantrao Patil and Jayachandra Jaywant Patil Vs. Sandeep ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR770; (2008)110BOMLR1877
ORDERS.S. Shinde, J.1. The present second appeal arises out of a suit filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Islampur for permanent injunction against the respondents/originl defendants in respect of ancestral property as described in Para 1 of the plaint. 2. While admitting the appeal on 9th March 2000 this Court recorded the following substantial question of law which arises in this Second Appeal :-Whether the sale deed dated 11.8.78 is legal and valid in view of the provisions of Section 12(1)(d) and 12(3) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986?FACTUAL MATRIX :-3. The present appellants/original plaintiffs instituted a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents/original defendants in respect of one piece of agricultural land from village Aitwade-Khurd, Tal. Walwa, Dist.Sangli bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 33/1994 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Islampur, District Sangli. 4. It was the case of the appellants/plaint...
Ravi Kamal Bali Vs. Kala Tech and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR138; (2008)110BOMLR2167; LC2008(2)434; 2008(38)PTC435(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The judgment was reserved on 12.2.2008. By a preceipe dated 29.3.2008 the Defendants sought to tender an additional affidavit to bring on record further documents and to raise a new defence. This application was heard by me on 3.6.2008. I have rejected the application for reasons furnished later in this judgment. 2. The Plaintiff has sought an injunction restraining the Defendants from making of, using, selling or distributing tamper proof locks/seals that fall within the scope of the claims of the Plaintiff's patent bearing No. 162675 and patent of addition No. 178879 so as to infringe the same and for delivery of for destruction any material infringing the said patents. The Plaintiff has also sought damages. Defendant No. 2 carries on business as the sole proprietor in the firm name and style of Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 is the former employee of the Plaintiff who has joined Defendant No. 1/2 to assist him in carrying on his business. According to the Plain...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »