Mumbai Court July 2009 Judgments

Sharad S/O. Jamnadharji Mor Vs. Arjun S/O. Yeshwant Dhanwatey and Yesh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR523

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal is directed against order passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No. 1100/2007, whereby the learned Judge rejected appellant's application for injunction to restrain the respondents from creating third party rights over the suit property by way of sale, lease, gift, mortgage etc.2. The facts, which are material for deciding this appeal are as under : Respondent No. 1 Arjun is recorded owner of the property wherein his father respondent No. 2 Yashwant has relinquished his right by a deed dated 31st October, 1974. Arjun entered into an agreement on 19th October, 2004 with the appellant/ plaintiff for sale and development of the property for a consideration of Rs. 1,71,63,000/out of which a sum of Rs. 95,63,000/was to be paid in cash and the balance of Rs. 76,00,000/was to be spent by the appellant/ plaintiff on providing two apartments of specifications, mentioned in the annexure to the agreement, to the vendo...

Sukhadeo S/O Nimbaji Meshram Vs. Smt. Shobhatai W/O Krishnarao Bagde

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR525

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition by son of erstwhile tenant, who had become absolute owner by operation of law, takes exception to rejection of his application under Section 120(c) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.2. Facts, which are material for deciding this petition, are as under:Field survey No. 36 - 17 acres and 12 gunthas - of Village Hiwara Lahe was owned by one Multanmal. Petitioner's father Nimba was tenant of the field. Ownership of the land was transferred to Nimba on 18-10-1969 by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Murtizapur and purchase certificate was issued to Nimba on 24-3-1975. However, Nimba was in possession of only 9 acres of land, as remaining 8 acres had been sold by landlord's daughter illegally in 1964 to Keshav Borkar and his wife Kishnabai, who took forcible possession in 1973-74. Respondent Shobhatai Bagde pur...

Shri R.P. Dorasthawar Vs. the Director, Western Regional Instrumentati ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj263

ORDERV.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging judgment and award passed by the Industrial Court dated 14.10.1997 whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner vide Complaint (ULP) No. 1155 of 1990 in the Industrial Court was dismissed. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Technician C (Photography) by the Executive Council of the University of Bombay by letter dated 16.5.80. The respondent - Western Regional Instrumentation Centre, hereinafter referred to as WRIC was established as an institution by the University of Bombay under Section 4(4) read with Section 2(17) of the Bombay University Act, 1974 as per the guidelines given by the University Grants Commission. The University decided to give functional autonomy to WRIC and therefore, Executive Council of the University of Bombay in its meeting held on 30.8.1980 decided...

Kailash Mahadeo Mhaske and anr. Vs. Vasant Changdeo Gaikwad

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR552

Mohta Anoop V., J.1. These two Civil Applications filed by the defendants including original defendant No. 1 for clarification of an order dated 1st October, 2008, whereby, this Court has directed both the parties to maintain status quo.2. The strong reliance is placed on : 2006 DGLS (soft) 80 : 2006(2) All.M.R. (S.C.) 56 : 2006(3) S.C.C. 312, (Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Anr. v. Praveen Kumar Singh), and thereby contended that an order directing the parties to maintain the status quo should be clear and it is necessary to indicate what the status quo is.3. Admittedly, the trial Court has granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff, with regard to the property in question, against the defendants. The miscellaneous appeals were preferred. The Appellate Court, by an order dated 20/8/2008 reversed the order passed by the trial Court below Exhibit 5. However, by an order dated 26/8/2008, the Appellate Court itself had stayed the order dated 20/8/2008.4. The plaintiff, therefore, preferred ...

Mr. Ramnath D. Mungse and Another Vs. M/S.Yogam Enterprises and Anothe ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr. A.V. Patwardhan-Advocate for the revisionist. Also Mr. Ghansham Patil-A.R. for the opponents is present and heard. He filed Vakalatnama of Mr. R.D. Desai-Advocate on behalf of opponents, but counsel is not present today. Perused the record. Revision petition is directed against the order dated 6/4/2009 whereby application of the revisionist to appoint Court Commissioner, stood rejected. Court Commissioner was sought to be appointed to verify the facts regarding alleged deficiency in service. This subject is a part of evidence which is to be tendered by the complainant to prove his complaint. Complainant is always free to lead evidence under section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of qualified Engineer or Architect about bad work for which they made a complaint. Court Commissioner is not the one to be used to fish out the circumstances. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence...

Shri Govind Bhagawantrao Nadgauda Vs. I.C.i.C.i. Bank Thru Office of M ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal arises out of order/award dated 23/10/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.388/2006 Shri Govind Bhagawantrao Nadgauda V/s. ICICI Bank and Anr. by District Consumer Forum Kolhapur (Forum below in short). By the impugned order/award, complaint was partly allowed, but not satisfied with it, this appeal is preferred by the org. complainant. Appellant had purchased a car after taking a car loan from the respondent-/O.P.No.1-ICICI Bank (hereinafter referred as Bank). He had paid the installments, but sometimes at delay. He had a grievance about double recovery of payment on one occasion and about delayed payment charges and penalty charges recovered from him by the Bank while settling the account. He also raised a grievance about giving him humiliating treatment at the time when he went to demand No Dues Certificate/No Objection Certificate after repayment of loan and closing the loan account. The Bank denied e...