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.
Janardan @ Govind Vassudeva Bhat and ors. Vs. Mortibai Ramchandra Bhat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR639; 2008(6)MhLj386
N.A. Britto, J.1. This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal arising from RCS No. 84/1990.2. Heard Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs. The respondents have chosen to remain absent.3. The plaintiffs (the plaintiff No. 2 is deceased and is now represented by her legal heirs) had filed a suit for the following reliefs:(a) that they be declared as the owners of the suit properties;(b) for an order to the Survey Authorities to resurvey and demarcate the suit properties based on old cadastral survey and record the names of the plaintiffs as occupants of the suit properties;(c) for an order of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from carrying out any construction in the suit properties; and(cc) that the deed of sale dated 28-7-1987 registered under No. 419/1987 be declared as null and void and upon it being so declared, it be delivered and cancelled.(ccc) to direct the defendant No. 1 or any person or persons claiming through her to quit, vacate and ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashabai Kalyan Kothi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ163; 2008(5)ALLMR839; 2008(6)BomCR89
Oka Abhay S., J.1. The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. Considering the controversy involved, the appeal was taken up for final hearing at admission stage. Today the appeal is kept for dictation of the judgment.2. The appellant Insurance Company has taken an exception to the judgment and Award dated 30th March, 2007 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Beed. The first to third respondents herein are the claimants who filed a claim petition invoking Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act.)3. According to the case of the claimants, the 4th respondent is the owner of the truck which was validly insured with the appellant on the relevant date. The case of the claimants is that deceased was an employee of one Deelip Kishanlal Munot drawing salary of Rs. 4000/- p.m. On 9th September, 2004, the deceased was looking after the construction site of his employe...
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai Vs. Joint Venture Angerlehner Mich ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR540
Karnik D.G., J.1. In all these petitions arising under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Arbitration Act, 1996'), an objection has been raised either by the office or by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that proper Court fee has not been paid. According to the office as also the Counsel for the respondents, proper Court fee payable would be ad valorem as provided under Article 3 read with Article 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 on the value of the subject-matter of the award. On the other hand, according to the Counsel for the applicants, the Court fee payable would be a fixed Court fee as provided under Class-1 (f) of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act.2. At the outset, I must record my appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by the Counsel and in particular by Mr. Shyam Mehta, Mr. Andhyarujina and Mr. Dhanuka who presented their views with precision and clarity.3. Learned Counsel submitted that the matter is ...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Vijay Bhikaji Karpe,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2076
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. The State is aggrieved by judgment and order rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on 28.2.1992, in Sessions Case No. 349 of 1990. At the conclusion of the trial, present respondents, who were the three accused before the court and who were tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, were held not guilty and acquitted of the charges.2. The prosecution story can be summed up as follows;Victim Machindra was the son of complainant Murlidhar (PW-7). It appears that there had been some bickerings between brother of accused No. 3 Vaibhav (henceforth 'A-3' for brevity's sake). (It is not clear from the narration of the prosecution story, whether it was A-2 Shriram or any other brother of A-3) and Machindra (victim), few days prior to incident, which was the day of immersion of Ganesh Idols at the conclusion of Ganesh festival. It seems to be the story of prosecution that Vaibhav was aggrieved, because Machindra had beat...
Krantikari Kamgar Union Vs. Labour and Enforcement Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR55; [2008(119)FLR654]; 2008(5)MhLj566
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution have been instituted in order to challenge an order passed by the conciliation officer declining to allow the petitioner to participate in conciliation proceedings on behalf of the workers of M/s IPCA Laboratories Limited in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The petitioner was registered as a trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and a registration certificate dated 17th November, 2007 has been issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions in the State of Maharashtra. The Fourth Respondent is a trade union by the name of Akhil Dadra and Nagar Haveli Kamgar Sangh. According to the petitioner, the employees of M/s IPCA Laboratories Limited (the Third Respondent) were members of the Fourth Respondent, but resigned from the union some time in November, 2007. The petitioner submitted a charter of demands. The First Respondent who is the Labour and Enforcement Officer of Dadra and Nagar Haveli was, a...
Parvatabai W/O Bhiva Raimane Since Deceased Through Her Lrs. Jaywantab ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj252
R.M. Borde, J.1. This is an appeal by original plaintiffs raising challenge to the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 249/94 by District Judge, Jalgaon on 25-2-2000 whereby the first appeal presented by the original defendant came to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court came to be set aside.2. Appellants/original plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Appeal No. 205/80 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Raver claiming relief of perpetual injunction against defendants thereby restraining them from obstructing peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands. Suit lands are agricultural properties bearing gat No. 1501/1, 1501/2 and 1501/3 situate at Raver which according to the plaintiffs, are owned by them. According to plaintiffs, the lands were originally owned by their mother Ravakabai w/o Ziparu Hiware who had bequeathed the said property by executing registered Will-deed on 4-7-1976 in favour of the plaintiffs. On her demise,...
Shakeel Ahmed Fateh Mohd. Sundke Vs. Aziz Ahmed Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj418
A.A. Sayed, J.1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 13-3-2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, in a Revision Application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4-3-2006 passed by the Competent Authority, directing the petitioner to vacate the flat in question and pay damages, which Revision Application came to be rejected.3. The flat in question is Flat No. 1, Ground Floor, S.Y. Hilltop Plot No. 98, Kauser Bagh Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd., Kondhwa Khurd, Pune 411048 ('the said flat' for short) which is held by the Respondent on ownership basis. The petitioner was inducted in the said flat on the basis of a leave and license agreement some time in the year 1998. The eviction of the petitioner is sought on the basis of another agreement of leave and license dated 1-7-2004 between the same parties under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 ('t...
E. Leslie and Co. Vs. Vaividhya Print Crafts and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR615; 2008(5)BomCR344; (2008)110BOMLR2045; 2008(6)MhLj410
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Plaintiffs admittedly licensed their premises to the Defendants under the Leave and Licence Agreement dated 15.1.1971, Exhibit - B. The Agreement is for a period of three years. It would expire by efflux of time on 14.1.1974. It is the Plaintiffs' contention that they orally terminated the Licence Agreement in December 1972 in the presence of two persons in Defendant No. 1- Firm viz. one Dattatraya Chintaman Khandkar and Prabhakar Shivshankar Bandodkar. No notice of termination is sent to the Defendants. The Defendants have denied the termination. It is the Defendant s ' contention that the Defendants continued to be the licensees under the Agreement, Exhibit - B dated 15.1.1971 for a period of three years which was the term of the licence have continued in possession thereafter. It is their contention that the case of termination of licence made out by the Plaintiffs is false, dishonest and made only with a view to claim possession from the Defendants after the ...
Avatarsingh S/O Mohindersingh Ghotra Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR218; 2008(5)MhLj584
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. Heard Mr. Dharmadhikari with Mr. Khajanchi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jichkar, A.G.P., for respondents 1 and 2, Mr. G.C. Singh and Mr. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for intervenors. The applications filed by them for intervention are allowed.3. This petition is directed against an order made by the trial Court refusing to grant leave to file suit by dispensing the statutory mandatory notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code, since the suit is against the public officers. The learned trial Court rejected the said application having been impressed by the fact that the decision on the tender process was to be taken on 11-6-2008 and the suit was filed on 9-6-2008 in respect of cause of action which arose on 6-6-2008. The trial Court also observed on merits in order to support his order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner then argued that Section 80(2) of Civil Procedure Code is ...
Gangadhar Alias Dewaji S/O Govinda Paraye and ors. Vs. Vasant (Claimin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR619; 2008(6)BomCR429; 2008(5)MhLj744
Vasanti A. Naik, J.1. By this Second Appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Buldana on 31st January, 1994 in Regular Civil Suit No. 58/1991 as also that of the Additional District Judge, Buldana dated 20th June, 1996 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1994.2. This Court had admitted the Second Appeal by an order dated 7-8-1996 but had not framed any Substantial Question of Law. This Court, however, observed in the order dated 7-8-1996 that the trial Court did not consider that the plaintiff had not legally and properly proved the essential requirement of 'giving and taking' for proving the factum of adoption.3. Few facts giving rise to this Second Appeal are stated thus:The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession with future mesne profits. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was originally owned by one...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »