Mumbai Court September 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.
Tata Finance Limited Vs. Smt. Naseeb Kaur W/O Joginder Singh Saini
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR756; 2009(1)BomCR846; 2008(6)MhLj426
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The matter is part heard. It was required to be adjourned as nobody appeared for the respondent yesterday. Today, again when the matter was called out first, nobody had appeared and it was passed over. When it is called out again, there is no appearance for the respondent.2. Shri Naik, learned Counsel for the applicant points out that the present respondent has purchased a truck through finance made available by present Revision Applicant and as per the agreement entered into between the parties, the jurisdiction is specifically restricted only to Courts in Bombay where the present applicant has got its registered office. He states that in this background, the present respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 153 of 1999 claiming declaration that the defendant (present applicant) is not entitled to seize the vehicle. In support of his prayer, he pointed out some factual dispute in his plaint. The suit was opposed by present applicant and the applicant filed an ap...
Satish Bhagwandas Vs. Municipal Council, Dhule Now Municipal Corporati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR247; 2009(2)MhLj296
Karnik D.G., J.1. Heard.2. By consent the appeals are heard finally.3. Following substantial questions of law are framed:(I) Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in hearing the appeals exparte in view of order of status quo passed by this Court on 25.10.2005?(II) Whether the appellants herein were justified in not participating in the proceedings before the lower Appellate Court on the ground that there was a stay to the appellate proceedings granted by this Court by an order dated 25.10.2005 passed by this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 16 of 2005 with connected 77 revision applications?4. All these appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 5.3.2008, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhule dismissing Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2004 and 77 other connected appeals.5. The facts leading to the appeals stated in short are that the appellants claim to be the sufferers of partition between India and Pakistan. They or their ancestors migrated to ...
Swastik Complex Private Ltd. Vs. Prafulla Jageshwar Mukaddam (Dr.) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR309; 2009(1)BomCR150
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Defendant No. 1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1634 of 2000 has filed this Revision challenging rejection of his application below Exh. 15 vide order dated 20.02.2001 by Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur. The objections raised to the maintainability of Regular Civil Suit No. 1634 of 2000 were in the light of earlier litigation vide Regular Civil Suit No. 1214 of 1998 and pointing out provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, Section 11 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. That application has been rejected.2. The revision applicant claims to be a Builder and Developer and he has constructed a complex on Plot No. 21 and it is not in dispute that on front side as also on rear side of this plot, there are public roads. The grievance of the present non-applicants No. 1 to 5, who filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1634 of 2000, is in relation to public road of 40 feet width on rear side of said plot No. 21. It appears that all plots located between these two public ro...
Dattatraya Vasudev Kulkarni and ors. Vs. Ghama Chavadas Bendale and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR852; 2009(2)MhLj708
Gavai B.R., J.1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon dated 15.1.1986, thereby allowing the revision application filed by the respondent and setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, Yaval dated 10.11.1982 and the order passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 17th October, 1989, thereby dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner.2. Facts in brief, leading to the present petition are as under:That, one Dattatraya Kulkarni, the father of the present petitioners was the landlord and the respondents were tenants of the land Gat No. 682 of Nhavi, Taluka Yawal, District Jalgaon, to the extent of land admeasuring 26 R. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondents have not paid rent from the year 1961 and 62. It is further the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners have given intimation terminating the tenancy of the respondents orally as well as in...
Sangamitra W/O Ramakant Royalwar Vs. Ramakant S/O Gangaram Royalwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR1; 2009(1)BomCR316; 2009(1)MhLj303
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. All these Misc. Civil Applications are filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure by wives for transfer of Hindu Marriage Petitions filed by their respective husbands (non-applicants) from the places of its institution to the place where they are residing with their parents.In Misc. Civil Application No. 105/2008, Hindu Marriage Petition No. 014/2006 pending on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Biloli, District Nanded, is sought to be transferred to the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur. This Court has on 06.02.2008 while issuing notice for final disposal stayed further proceeding in the said H.M.P. Misc. Civil Application No. 203/2008 seeks transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No. A-349/2007 from the file of Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad to Family Court, Nagpur. This Court has after mentioning the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay : AIR2002SC396 on 05.03.2008 issued notice, and also gr...
indira Chetan Puri Vs. Lic of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR842; 2008(6)MhLj652
V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Perused the petition.3. This petition is directed against the order dated 1-7-2008 passed by the Principle Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court in Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 2005, confirming the order of eviction dated 13-4-2005 passed by the Estate Officer appointed under Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ('the Act of 1971' for short).The Factual Matrix:4. The factual matrix reveal that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of the premises situate at Village No. 5, Row No. 3, Ground Floor, Jeevan Bima Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400 103, owned by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai ('the L.I.C.' for short) since 1962.5. The L.I.C. through its Advocate issued notice dated 12-9-1996 terminating petitioner's tenancy on the ground that the petitioner has constructed a weather-shed and has also erected a fence around the shed to prevent the respondent's staff from coming near i...
Jai Jagdish Sugar Vs. Vasantdada Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR740; 2008(6)BomCR587
Daga V.C., J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 23rd December, 2005 passed by the District Judge, Nashik below Exh. 1 in Civil Misc. Application No. 154/ 2005 (Arbitration) whereby the application for condonation of delay came to be rejected.The Facts in short:2. It is not necessary to draw detailed factual matrix. Suffice it to say that the petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement dated 30th October, 2001 containing therein arbitration clause to resolve dispute, that may arise, relating to the agreement.3. The respondent- Vasant Dada Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. filed Co-operative Case No. 1725/2002 against the petitioner in the Co-operative Court at Nashik under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ('MCS Act' for short). In the said proceeding, the petitioner filed an application (Exh. 14) for referring the dispute to Arbitrator in accordance with the agreement dated 13th August, 2001.The learned Judge of the Co-operat...
Chetan Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR189; 2008(6)BomCR594
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgement and order passed by Joint Charity Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'JCC') dated 29th March, 2007 in Application below Exhibit-17 in Application No. 5 of 2008.2. The said application (Application No. 5 of 2008) is filed by the respondent No. 5 Mrs. Charuben Mehta under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 for suspension/removal/dismissal of another trustee, Shri Prabodh Mehta (respondent No. 6). The said Prabodh Mehta incidentally happens to be the father of the present petitioner.3. The sole basis on which that application proceeds is that the said Prabodh Mehta has been convicted in the Tribunal Court of First Instance of Juridical District of Antwerp (Belgium) vide Judgement No. 5686 dated 6.12.2007 and was sentenced to imprisonment of six months for having committed offences of fraud, forgery etc. involving moral turpitude and i...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Madan Vithalrao Naiknaware and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR70
Borkar P.R., J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the State Government being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Beed in L.A.R. No. 75 of 1995 decided on 29.10.1993. A.G.P. Shri D.V. Tele has argued that the reference was barred by limitation and inspite of that it was entertained and as such this appeal should be allowed the judgment and award passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Beed should be set aside.2. The facts regarding which there is no more dispute are that the award was passed by the S.L.A.O. on 16.8.1985. Thereafter, reference was made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, bearing L.A.R. No. 94 of 1985. Admittedly, present claimants who are respondents were parties to the said proceedings. Said L.A.R. No. 94 of 1984 was decided on 4.9.1991. The amount was paid to the claimants as per the award under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act on 5.9.1991. Thereafter, application was filed under Section 18 ...
Parineeta Chaudhari and ors. Vs. Mohammed HussaIn A. Furniturewalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR761; 2009(1)BomCR53
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. Godbole waives notice for the respondent. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent.3. This writ petition under Article 227 takes exception to the judgement and order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai dated 4th February 2008 in APPEAL/DESK/MRCA/REV/345/07. By the said decision, the revisional authority was pleased to dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners and instead confirmed the order passed by the Competent Authority (Rent Act) Konkan Division, Mumbai in Eviction Application No. 49 of 2005 dated 28th June, 2007.4. It is not in dispute that the respondent is the owner of the property admeasuring 9,509 sq.ft which is the residential flat bearing flat No. 51 on the fifth floor along with two car parking spaces under the stilts of Victoria Apartment, St. Alexious Road, Bandra. The responden...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »