Mumbai Court January 2009 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.
Trivendibai Kishnrao Ghadge and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR484
Tated K.K., J.1. All the above three first appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 7th July, 2001 passed by Joint District Judge, Latur. As identical questions of facts and law arise in these appeals, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these appeals by common judgment.2. The relevant facts are that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'S.L.A.O.') issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1984') on 19th December, 1991. After following due process of law, the S.L.A.O. issued notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 25th January, 1993. Thereafter the S.L.A.O. declared award dated 18th October, 1994 under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 and awarded compensation in respect of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 44,000/-per hector for the lands of the claimants in L.A.R. No. 290 of 1995 and at the rate of Rs. 42,000/- per hector in respect of remaining claimants lands.3. Being aggrieved by the s...
Shankarlal Ramprasad Ladha Died L.Rs. (Chandrabhaga Shankarlal Laddha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR488; 2009(111)BomLR393
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by learned District Judge, Parbhani, in an appeal (RCA No. 104/1980), whereby and whereunder judgment of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Basmath, in a suit (RCS No. 28/1977), dismissing the same, came to be reversed.2. Original defendant No. 2 preferred this appeal which is continued by his legal representatives after his death. He was purchaser of suit house properties bearing House Nos. G-91 and H-207 situated at Basmathnagar which is a Taluka place.3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the original plaintiffs and Respondent No. 4 is the original defendant No. 1. Admittedly, the suit house properties were in the hands of deceased Chandidasrao Deshmukh. He died somewhere in the year 1962, leaving behind him the Respondents as his legal heirs. There is no dispute about the fact that the Respondent Nos. l and 2 are the sons of Respondent No. 3 and the Respondent No. 4 is their step brother. At the time of death of Chandidasrao D...
Baliram Atmaram Dhake Vs. Rahubai @ Saraswatibai W/O Madhavrao Bhole
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Bom57; 2009(4)BomCR820; 2009(111)BomLR387
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This Second Appeal is filed by original defendant No. 2 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 126 of 1982 decided on 19.12.1986, whereby the learned District Judge held that the share of plaintiff/respondent was augmented from 1/3rd to 1/2 in the suit property pending the appeal and thus otherwise confirmed the decree for partition and separate possession passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon in Regular Civil Suit No. 499 of 1979 decided on 25.1.1982 with the modification.2. This Second Appeal is admitted by order dated 1.7.1987 on ground No. 10, which is as follows :Both the lower Court have not properly considered the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which provides that certain widows are re-marrying may not inherit as widows.3. Most of the facts of this appeal are no more disputed. Thus it is admitted that the respondent-Rahubai had marrie...
Sudipta Sanjeeb Chakraborty Vs. Sanjeeb Chakraborty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR402; 2009(2)MhLj255
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard finally, by consent.2. The Petitioner/ wife has challenged the impugned order dated 01/11/2007, passed by the Family Court, Mumbai whereby her application is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction with regard to the dispute about flat situated at Pune, thereby not granted interim injunction / relief as prayed.3. The parties married on 28th March, 2003 as per the provisions of Special Marriage Act, at Mumbai. They continued to reside in Mumbai after their marriage. On 07/10/2006 the wife / Petitioner filed a Petition under Section 27(d) of the Special Marriage Act. As alleged during the marriage they jointly purchased the flat bearing No. 401 situated on 4th floor of building known as 'Marigold', A-8, Gulmohar City, Khardi, Pune. The Respondent-husband inducted tenants in the said flat. In view of apprehension that he would create some more encumbrance or third party rights, the Petitioner moved an interim Application No. 288 of 2006, seeking an injunc...
Chandrakant Dhanu and Harishchandra Dhanu Vs. Sharmila Kapur Daughter ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR698; 2009(111)BomLR665; 2009(2)MhLj243
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard finally, by consent.2. The Petitioners-Original Defendant Nos. 2 and 3/tenants have challenged the impugned order dated 30th September, 2008 passed on Exhibit 9 in Appeal No. 395 of 2008 in R.A.E. Suit No. 975/1640 of 2000 by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, to the extent of fixing the monthly compensation of the flat at Rs. 50,000/- p.m. and directing the Petitioner to pay the same till the disposal of the Appeal.3. The Petitioners' case is- Prior to 1997-1998, one Laldevi Trust was the owner and the landlord of a building known as 'Inder Bhuvan' situated at Pandita Ramabai Road, Mumbai 400 007. The said building consists of the ground and two upper floors.4. Late F.S.Vakil, the Grandfather of Respondent No. 4 was a tenant in respect of Flat No. 3 (which was later on numbered as Flat No. 2), on the West Side on the First Floor of the said building. The said flat admeasures about 1000 sq.ft., and consists of two bed rooms, hall, kit...
Goldgem Overseas Vs. Flawless Diamond (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR30; 2009(111)BomLR703; LC2009(1)345; 2009(41)PTC149(Bom)
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Plaintiff has sued the Defendant upon for infringement of his registered trademark and for the act of passing off the said mark. Both the parties are in the business inter alia of diamond jewellery. Both claim to use the trademark 'AUM' in respect of their product s, which are jewellery items. The goods of both the parties which essentially fall under the aforesaid mark are sold in retail outlets. It is the case of the Plaintiff that there is identity of business, goods as well as customers called 'The Triple Identity '.2. How and when both the parties came to use and apply the said mark are matters of admitted facts and documented records which need to be noted at the outset:1. The Defendant has been in busines s of jewellery since last 17 years. He has exhibited his product s in various outlets and show- rooms.2. The Plaintiff adopted the trademark 'AUM' for his products since May, 2000.3. The Plaintiff applied for and obtained registration of his trademark 'AU...
Ganesh Rambhau Khalale Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Bom122; 2009(1)BomCR689; 2009(111)BomLR677; 2009(2)MhLj788
A.P. Deshpande, J.1. Having noticed divergent views expressed in two judgments delivered by coordinate Benches of this Court the instant writ petitions are referred to this bench of three Judges which involve a common question of law. The reference is in relation to grant or refusal of protection to candidates appointed or admitted prior to 20.11.2000 against the posts reserved for scheduled tribe/scheduled caste category of the backward class on cancellation of their caste/tribe certificates pursuant to the verification of caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee. Before we proceed to deal with the relevant issue it would be appropriate to refer to the views taken in the two judgments. The judgment first in point of time is in Writ Petition No. 853 of 2007 (Union of India and Ors. v. Deepak Y. Gotefode) : 2007(6)BomCR586 . The respondent in the said writ petition was appointed as lower division clerk against a post reserved for scheduled tribe. In Clause 20 of the letter of appointment i...
Nivrutti S/O Kushaba Binnar Vs. Sakhubai W/O Keru Jorvar (Since Deceas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Bom93; 2009(2)BomCR14; 2009(111)BomLR573
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Both these appeals are being disposed of together in as much as some of the questions of facts and law involved therein are of identical nature.2. Challenge in these appeals is to judgement rendered by learned Additional District Judge,in an appeal bearing R.C.A. No. 384/1988 and appeal bearing R.C.A. No. 540/1988 whereby and whereunder judgements rendered in suits (R.C.S. No. 53/1984 and R.C.S. No. 91/1986, respectively) of the trial Court was confirmed.3. There is no dispute about following pedigree table.Kushaba (Died in 1948)------------------------------------- Taibai Dhondabai Bhagubai(Ist wife) (IInd wife) (IIIrd wife)(Died issueless) ------------------------------------------- Sakhubai Thakubai Muktabai Kasabai Nivrutti(Daughter) (Daughter) (Daughter) (Daughter) (adopted son)Said Kushaba died on 16th March, 1948. He had no male issue from either of the three (3) wives. Out of the three (3) wives left by him, Taibai, who was the senior widow amongst them, d...
Garbad Dhanu Dhangar (Since Deceased, by L.Rs. Vishwanath S/O Garbad S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR37; 2009(111)BomLR693
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. These writ petitions are being disposed of together in as-much-as common questions of law are involved therein. The petitioners are claiming tenancy rights in respect of various agricultural lands.2. There is no dispute about the fact that deceased Annaji Vinayak Athawale was owner of the various suit lands. He died on 28th January, 1947. At the time of his death, plaintiff Pandurang was his only son and was minor. The agricultural lands and other properties of the minor - plaintiff Pandurang were taken over under management of the Court of Wards with effect from 22nd December, 1947. The management of the suit lands was subsequently transferred to the Collector, Jalgaon, from 1st June, 1954. The plaintiff - Pandurang attained majority and, therefore, the management was terminated from 24th October, 1964.3. While the suit lands were under management of the Collector, Jalgaon, the latter filed tenancy applications No. 12/1960 to 17/1960 for declaration that the pres...
Navjivan Industries, Registered Partnership Firm, Vs. Dena Bank, Const ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR493
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree rendered by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Jalgaon, in a money suit (Spl.C.S. No. 3/1987).2. The appellants are original defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The Respondent No. 1 is plaintiff-bank and Respondent No. 2 is the guarantor for loans which were allegedly availed by the appellants.3. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are partners thereof. The Respondent No. 1 is a Bank duly constituted under the Banking Companies Act.4. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff bank was that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4/appellants sought loans. The loan proposals were considered and as per sanction of the competent Officer, the following loans were sanctioned to them.(a) Cash Credit Pledge of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs).(b) B.P. limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac).(c) Cash Credit Hypothecation loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs).(d) Ter...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »