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.
Kobad Rustomji Noble Vs. Nelly Rustomji Noble
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR339; 2008(5)MhLj289
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. Parties are brother and sister. They have filed their pleadings. Issues have been framed. It is the contention of the defendant-sister that the plaintiffs suit is barred by the Law of Limitation as seen from the plaint itself. The issue of limitation is to be decided as a preliminary issue under the provisions of Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is accordingly framed. The Advocates of the parties have been heard upon the issue of limitation.2. The suit is filed for accounts of the movable properties and assets left by the deceased Jerbai Rustomji Noble (the mother of the parties) and for administration of the same. The suit is also for a declaration that the plaintiff and the defendant are each entitled to half of the movable properties and assets of the deceased. The suit is further for a direction for the division of the properties and assets in equal shares between the plaintiff and the defendant and for the ancillary reliefs of making inquirie...
Cotton Corporation of India Limited Vs. Ramkumar Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)BomCR285
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. This is a suit for damages for breach of contract. The plaintiffs is a company registered under the Companics Act, 1956 and is a Government of India undertaking. The principal business of the plaintiffs is to act as Canalising Agent for import and supply of foreign cotton to Indian Textile Mills. A Circular dated 12th March, 1977 was issued by the plaintiffs to all textile mills in India including the defendants, inviting offers for purchase of Global Cotton proposed to be imported by the plaintiffs of the varieties and at the rate mentioned in the said Circular. In response to the said circular, the defendants-a company registered under the Companies Act who owns Textile Mill at Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore, by its letter dated 22nd March, 1977 furnished their requirement of global cotton of 300 bales of Orleans/Texas Cotton and 300 bales of Sudan Acala Cotton R.G. Besides sending the said letter, the defendants had sent Telex dated 22nd March 1977 requesting the plai...
Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Jugalkishore Kedarnath Agraw ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR643; 2009(4)BomCR913; 2008(6)MhLj265
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Both these appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure arise out of common judgment and decree delivered on 5th November, 1992 by 8th Additional District Judge, Nagpur. By the said common judgment, the lower Appellate Court has decided Regular Civil Appeal No. 685 of 1984 filed by appellant Jugalkishore Kedarnath Agrawal and Sons in Second Appeal No. 222 of 1993 as also Regular Civil Appeal No. 691 of 1984 filed by appellant Agricultural Produce Market Committee in Second Appeal No. 220 of 1993.2. Dispute between parties is in relation to recovery of market cess and supervision charges under the provisions of the Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. It is not in dispute that Agricultural Produce Market Committee is a body constituted thereunder while M/s Jugalkishore Kedarnath Agrawal and Sons is a trader duly authorised/licensed to function as such in its market yard.3. Regular Civil Suit No. 2001 of 83 came to be filed by Agricu...
Madhusudan Shrikrishna Vs. Emkay Exports and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR938; 2008(6)MhLj797
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard. The present appeal arises from the order dated 13-9-2004 passed in Notice of Motion No. 2322 of 2004 in Summary Suit No. 3835 of 2003. By the impugned order, the motion taken out by the respondents, the original defendants in the suit, has been allowed and an ex parte decree in the said suit has been set aside.2. The undisputed facts in the matter are that, by Advocate's notice dated 22-7-2002, issued on behalf of the appellant, the respondents herein were called upon to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- which was the subject-matter of the cheque dated 7-6-2002. As there was failure to pay the said amount, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were initiated. Thereafter, on 1-12-2003 Summary Suit No. 3835 of 2003 came to be filed against the respondents claiming an amount of Rs. 9,03,732/- along with interest thereon on account of failure to pay the said dues payable by the defendants pursuant to supply of goods by the plai...
Fire Protection Systems Vs. Panjak Champaklal Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR290; 2008(6)MhLj589
Majmudar P.B., J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 9-1-2003, passed in Notice of Motion No. 3568 of 2002 in Summons for Judgment No. 831 of 2002 in Summary Suit No. 1443 of 2002. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the summary suit has been filed against the respondent-defendant for getting decree of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The said suit is filed as a summary suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter called as 'the CPC). In the aforestated said suit, the learned Single Judge passed a decree on 10-12-2002 on the ground that the defendant failed to seek leave to defend the suit and, therefore, the decree was passed in view of failure on the part of the defendant to submit an application for leave to defend the suit. The present respondent thereafter moved an application under Order 37, Rule 4 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the said decree on the ground that he was prevented by sufficient reasons...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›