Mumbai Court February 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.
Laxman Jagobaji Rajurkar and ors. Vs. Bhagwan Barba Rajurkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR450
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this appeal the original plaintiff (through his legal heirs now) has challenged the concurrent judgments delivered by the courts below dismissing his suit for partition and separate possession. Deceased plaintiff - Laxman filed Civil Suit No. 1136/1994 contending that Khasara No. 3 and Khasara No. 19 of Mouza Dongargaon (Khairi), Tahsil and District Nagpur, initially belonged to one Barkya Vithu Teli and in course of inheritance devolved upon grandfather Pandurang and thereafter his father Jagobaji and his father's brother Barba. After Barba and Jagoba died property vested in three sons of Barba who were joined as defendants and deceased plaintiff Laxman. Though, initially the suit was also filed for partitioning Khasara No. 3, later claim in relation to Khasara No. 19 was given up and suit was pressed only in relation to Khasara No. 3. Laxman claimed half share in Khasara No. 19. The suit was opposed by the defendants, who denied the genealogical tree as in...
Sopanrao Laxmanrao Mhaske and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR443
Tated K.K., J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mrs. A.B. Dube, learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.2. The present petition filed by the petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21, 300A, read with 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the entire action initiated by respondent No. 2 on the basis of inspection carried out on 22-6-2007.3. It is the case of the petitioners that they entered into agreement dated 2-7-1983 with respondent No. 2. By the said agreement, respondent No. 2 appointed the petitioners as their dealer for the retail sale or supply of petrol/diesel/motor oils/Greases and such other products as may be specified by respondent No. 2 from time to time. It is specifically stated in the agreement that the said agreement will remain in forc...
Praful Pimpalwar (Dr.) Vs. Prakashchandra Purushottamsaran Agrawal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR460
Dongaonkar S.R., J.1. Heard Shri Darda, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Ghare, Advocate for respondent.2. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent parties.3. Petitioner is challenging the order of Judge, Small Causes Court, below exhibit 14 in M.J.C. 4/08 the proceedings for fixation of fair rent instituted by the petitioner.4. The petitioner was served with the suit summonses on 28.4.2008. He was expected to file written statement on or before 27.5.2008. Petitioner then applied for leave to file Written Statement on 19.7.2008. However, that application was rejected and the defendant was not allowed to file written statement on record. This order is challenged in this petition.5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.6. It does appear that the date on which the petitioner had applied for leave to file Written Statement was within a period of 90 days. No doubt the petitioner has failed to make out a specific case or exceptional circumstance for allowin...
Krishna H. Bajaj Through Her Constituted Attorney Mr. Shailesh Bajaj V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1509; [2009]152CompCas43(Bom)
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The matter was heard at length at the admission stage, as the contesting parties are all appearing in the matter through their Advocates. Learned Asst. Solicitor General is appearing for respondent No. 2 and so far as Registrar of Companies is concerned, in the original proceedings, he has filed an affidavit on behalf of the Regional Director and it was agreed by both sides that the matter can be decided finally at the stage of admission itself. As regards respondent No. 4, for the first time when an order was passed on 24.12.2008, the Official Liquidator had appeared and his appearance is shown in that order. However, since there was some error in the name of Official Liquidator, the same was corrected as Shri Sanjay Kumar Gupta in the next order dated 31.12.2008. Accordingly, the matter was heard finally and a formal order of admission is passed. Admit. Respective Advocates waive service for the concerned respondents. The Appeal is now being disposed off by this J...
Shivajirao S/O Prataprao Chalukya Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1359
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.3. The petitioner challenges an order dated 1/1/2009 passed by Collector, Osmanabad rejecting objection petition filed by him to the provisional list of voters published for holding elections for the first time to the Board of Directors of Shivshakti sugar factory.4. The learned Counsel Shri. N.P. Patil (Jamalpurkar) appearing for petitioner submitted that objections raised are practically upheld by the Collector but the objection petition came to be rejected on the ground that the Collector's powers are very limited under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act of 1960') and the rules made thereunder. According to petitioner, the respondent No. 4 Keshav s/o Rajaram Patil was enrolled as member on 14/04/2007 and the cut off date was fixed by the Collector as 30/06/2007. In view of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committe...
The Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited, a Company Incorporated Und ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR268; 2009(111)BomLR1321
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Appellant before this Court, who is Original Defendant No. 1, took out Chamber Summons No. 2093 of 2007 in Suit No. 527 of 2005 praying that the name of the present Appellant/Original Defendant No. 1 i.e. The Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited, be deleted from the array of parties to the suit and in its place the name of the Applicant i.e. Great Offshore Limited be inserted. This prayer was made on the basis of a fact that the Great Eastern Shipping Company was demerged. This Chamber Summons was dismissed by learned Single Judge by an order dated 12th August, 2008 which reads as under:1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the plaintiff who is appearing in person.2. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the applicant - the Great Offshore Ltd. and it is prayed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that the defendant No. 1 may be deleted and in its place the name 'The Great Offshore Limited' be inserted. It is st...
Motwane Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Bom)462
R.S. Mohite, J.1. The questions of law as referred to this Court under Section 27(1) of the WT Act are as follows:(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that land used for internal roads of the factory and playground for workers of the factory is taxable as wealth of the company, when the factory building has not been charged for wealth-tax?(2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the approach road and internal roads are treated as part of the building for the purpose of depreciation under the IT Act, 1961 and therefore, the assessee is the owner of the land?2. The brief facts of the case were as under:(a)The applicant company was the owner of a plot of land with several structures standing thereon. For the asst. yr. 1990-91, an assessment was filed by the assessee detailing the details of the user of the aforesaid open plot of land. These details as shown by the assessee were as follows:Buildings:(1) Land surrendered to the municipal corpn. for road 313....
Mohan Dagadu Nimbalkar Nageshwarwadi Vs. the State of Maharashtra thro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR474
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of termination dated 9th May, 1995 by which the petitioner, who was appointed as Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class (for short 'CJJD & JMFC') on probation, has been terminated from the date he received a copy of the order.2. Necessary facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was selected as CJJD & JMFC vide notification dated 19th November, 1990 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, General Administration Department, Mantralaya (Law & Judiciary Department), Mumbai. The first posting of the petitioner was at Wardha where he joined on 10.1.1991 as a trainee for six months under the District and Sessions Court, Wardha. After completion of the training he was posted at Karanja (Ghadge) on 30.11.1991. He continued to work there till 31.5.1994. Thereafter he was transferred to the District Court at Thane as the 3rd Jt. CJJD and ...
Sanjay Baburao Pathrale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2165
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this common judgment, both the appeals are being disposed of together because they arise out of the same judgment rendered by learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 46/1995. By the impugned judgment, appellant Sanjay, who has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 155/1997, has been convicted for offence punishable Under Section 307 and 498A of the I.P.C. and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six (6) months and further to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months respectively, with direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Connected Criminal Appeal No. 289/1997 is preferred by the State for enhancement of the sentence.2. Indisputably, marriage of appellant Sanjay and Vaishali (deceased) was performe...
Khandu S/O. Mahadji Malwatkar Vs. Parasram S/O. Gyanoba Doke,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1374; 2009(4)MhLj614
P.R. Borkar, J.1. As per order passed by this Court on 14th November, 2008, this appeal is being heard finally and disposed of at the stage of admission.2. The second appeal is directed against judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Basmathnagar, Dist. Parbhani in Regular Civil Suit No. 51 of 1995 on 14.11.2003, which judgment and decree is further confirmed by the learned District Judge-1, Basmathnagar, while deciding Regular Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2004 on 14.03.2008.3. Heard Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the appellant, Shri S.G. Chincholkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri G.R. Syed, Advocate for respondent No. 3.4. This second appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:Whether respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were original plaintiffs were entitled to file suit in representative capacity regarding alleged encroachment made by the appellant into the property of respondent No. 3-Grampanchayat?5. Before we proceed to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »