Mumbai Court December 2009 Judgments

Acknur Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sweety Rajendra Agarwal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR15

Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. This is a suit by a Builder and Developer against the Cooperative Housing Society and the occupants, who are in the occupation of flats/tenaments and shops in a building known as Fardoon Apartment, Co-operative Housing Society, situate at 6th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai - 400 052.2. The relief claimed by the plaintiffs in the Suit proceeds on the basis that the Cooperative Housing Society has, at its General Body Meeting, passed a Resolution, pursuant to which, it is resolved that the existing structure/building would be pulled down or demolished and a new building/structure would be constructed on the plot of land belonging to the Cooperative Housing Society. In this new building all the members would be provided housing accommodation of the same area by the plaintiffs/Developers. To enable them to construct new building and hand over the flats and tenaments to the members of the Co-operative Housing Society that it was resolved that an agreement can be executed...

infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Vijaya V. Prabh ...

Court: Mumbai

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This is a plaintiff's Summary Suit under Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for decree and order against the defendant in the sum of Rs. 12,01,00,654/as set out in the particulars of claim annexed to the plaint as Exhibit E together with interest on the principal sum of Rs. 8,60,00,000/.2. The plaintiff has filed supporting affidavit as well as supporting documents as well as rejoinder. The defendant has denied the same by a reply.3. The basic events are as under:In October, 2001, the plaintiffs were approached by one Supreme Telecommunications Ltd. (' the Company') with a request to advance a sum of Rs. 14 crores for meeting its Short Term to MediumTerm working capital requirement.4. On 27.9.2001, a Finance Agreement executed between the plaintiffs and the company. The plaintiffs duly advanced to the Company Rs. 14 crores. The defendant and her husband Shri Venkatesh was the promoter/ director of the Company.5. On 21.09.2002, a Deed of Confirmation was exec...

Ajit Shankarrao Deshmukh and ors. Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR706

Bhangale A.P., J.1. By this appeal filed under Section 47(5) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950'), the appellants challenge the order dated 19.3.2009 passed in Application No. 20 of 2008 by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, whereby an application under Section 47(1) of the Act of 1950 for appointment of trustees so as to manage the administration of the Ideal Education Society, Umred Dist. Nagpur {bearing Public Trust Registration No. F-164 (N)} was allowed, with necessary directions to newly appointed nine trustees (i.e. respondent Nos. 2 to 10) for management of the said Public Trust and its property in accordance with rules and regulations and Memorandum of Association.2. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid Public Trust was formed and registered with the aim and object to impart education from elementary stage to highest possible standards for students in the area of Umred Tahsil. The Trust is also running a Junior Co...

Chandrakant S/O Gajananrao Pise, Vs. the Collector, Having Its Office ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR125; 2010(1)MhLj268

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioners - the elected Councilors of Respondent No. 2 Municipal Council, Saoner, challenge the order dated 7/9/2009 passed by the Respondent No. 1 Collector, Nagpur in Petition No. 4/2009 under Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 (1987 Rules hereafter) in this writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. These 1987 Rules are framed under the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1987 (1987 Act hereafter). It is not in dispute that Respondent No. 2 is local authority constituted under Maharashtra Municipalities, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, 1965.2. Respondents No. 3 & 4 before this Court filed a reference application viz. petition under Rule 6 of 1987 Rules for declaration that the present Petitioners are disqualified under Section 3 of 1987 Act and can not continue as Councilors of Respondent No. 2 Municipal Council. Petitioners filed an application unde...

Pundalik Haribhau Chandekar Vs. Jagdish Dadaji Bind

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR114

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant has challenged the order passed below Exh. 1, by Ad hoc District Judge-5, Nagpur in Misc. Civil Application No. 862/2008, rejecting the application for condonation of delay on the ground that appeal itself was not provided for in the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1999 Act').2. I have heard learned Advocate Shri Raju Dhoble for the petitioner and learned Advocate Shri Sambhare holding for Advocate Shri A.G. Gharote for respondent finally looking to the nature of controversy, by making Rule returnable forthwith.3. On 14/10/2009, this Court gave time to both the sides to find out whether the matter could be amicably settled and also gave them further time on 13/11/2009. On 23/11/2009, I have heard the parties on the issue of maintainability and they were further heard on 25/11/2009.4. Learned Advocate Shri Dhoble for the petitioner ...

Shaligram Ramaji Dhekale and Smt. Babybai Shaligram Dhekale Vs. Ravind ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR55

A.P. Bhangale, J.1. The appeal questions correctness and legality of judgment and award dated 26.3.2008 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 998 of 2004 whereby the petition was allowed partly in the sum of Rs. 1,78,320/-along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 13.8.2004 till realization. Respondents No. 1 and 3, owner and insurer respectively of the offending vehicle viz. Truck No. MH31/M-5279 were held liable jointly and severally to pay compensation to the claimants herein (appellants No. 1 and 2).2. Facts briefly stated areThe appellants are unfortunate parents who lost their only son Nitin, aged about 25 years old youth in a road accident occurred on 27.5.2004 while offending motor truck described above driven rashly and negligently dashed him and caused untimely accidental death of Nitin, a pedestrian on the road.3. Learned Advocate for the appellants questioned the award on the ground tha...

Nagoraoji Amrutrao Bhoyar and ors. Vs. the Commissioner and Director o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR98

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. By this Writ Petition the order of the Settlement Commissioner is challenged whereby she refused to accept the request of the petitioner to put him in possession of field Gat No. 116 under the Scheme of Consolidation of Holdings.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows:Government of Maharashtra decided to implement the Scheme of Consolidation of Holdings under the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947 in the year 1979. Prior to consolidation the petitioners were the owners of Survey No. 51/3 and 51/4 while the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were the owners of Survey No. 51/1A. During the course of consolidation of scheme petitioners and respondents agreed to exchange their respective lands. Possession receipts were actually prepared on 28.05.1979. There was however no actual and physical exchange of possession. The petitioners field Sur. No. 51/3 and 51/4 were renumbered as Gat No. 120 and respondents fields Sur No. 51/1A ...

Shri Ramji Gupta Vs. M/S. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President Matter was heard on 11/8/2009 and notice before admission was issued r/o.03/12/2009. Hamdast was also ordered. Thereafter appellant has not complied with the order and not taken hamdast also. Appellant is absent today. Under these circumstances, there is no option but to dismiss the appeal. Hence the order:- Order Appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Mr. Prakash Rajaram Buchade and Others Vs. Shri Abhinandan Bhauso Mada ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President Admittedly these appeals were parties to the original proceeding namely consumer complaint no.311/2007, which was decided on 29/4/2009. Liability has been fixed in the said order as against the appellants. In proceeding under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 when repeatedly they were directed to appear before the District Consumer Forum they have failed to appear and, therefore, impugned order has been passed by the District Consumer Forum on 29/4/2009. We do not find any defect in the order. Hence the following order:- Order Appeal stands rejected. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....

Dr. Anjali C. Dhamangaonkar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumba ...

Court: Mumbai

Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing forthwith.2. The petitioner is presently working as an Associate Professor at Seth G.S. Medical College, Parel, Mumbai, who is respondent 3 herein. Respondent 1 is the Municipal Corporation which runs respondent 3-Medical College. Respondent 4 is also working as a professor at respondent 3-Medical College. Respondent 5 is the State of Maharashtra, represented through the Secretary, Medical Education & Research Department, which exercises overall control over respondents 1 to 3.3. The case of the petitioner as stated in the petition must be shortly stated:The petitioner joined the Department of Anatomy of respondent 3-College as a Tutor on 22/6/1983 and worked on the said post continuously till she was promoted as an Associate Professor in the Department of Anatomy of respondent 3 on 21/2/1994 and is continuously working on the said post since then. At the time of her appointment t...