Mumbai Court July 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.
Smt. Manju Kamal Mehra Vs. Mr. Kamal Pushkar Mehra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3535
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Both these appeals filed by the respective spouses arise from a common judgment and order dated 31.12.2004 passed by the Family Court at Pune in Petition No. A-978 of 2002 and hence they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The parties were married at Mumbai on 12.7.1994 as per Hindu rites and they co-habitated at Dahisar where a daughter by name Aishwarya was born to the couple on 21.12.1995. As per the husband, the wife did not return to the matrimonial home after the daughter was borne. The husband claims that the wife abandoned the matrimonial home, whereas it is the case of the wife that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home before the birth of the child that is some time in September, 1995. In July, 1996, the wifes younger sister Anju was married and the husband along with his family member attended the said marriage. The couple stayed together from 22nd to 26th July, 1996 in the house of the wifes parents but after 26th July, 1996, the wife di...
Amarjyot Singh Jaswant Singh Jaggi and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3382; 2009(6)MhLj115
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order passed by Tahsildar, Amravati, whereby he held the petitioners to be nonagriculturists.2. The facts necessary for decision of the writ petition are as follows The petitioners are the heirs of one Late Hardeep Kaur Jaggi - a plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 107 of 1984, while the respondents are the heirs of one Prabha Sabnis - the original defendant in the said suit. Plaintiff Sau.Hardeep Kaur instituted civil suit for specific performance of contract of sale of 11 acres of land out of field S. No. 116 against Prabha Sabnis. The said suit was contested by defendant Prabha on various grounds. One of the grounds raised was that decree for specific performance in favour of plaintiff Sau.Hardeep Kaur could not be passed as she was not agriculturist. The trial court as well as the first appellate court rejected the contention on two counts. First, there was no impediment in passing the decree since permission to purchase the land can b...
Max Cajeton Travasso of Bombay Indian Christian Inhabitant and Peter C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3743
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This is a Suit/Petition for Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Mrs. Bella Cajeton Travasso alias Bella C. Travasso alias B. C. Travasso of Bombay, Indian Christian, a widow, residing at Mahim, Bombay. She died at Bombay on 10th December, 1984 leaving behind two sons who are plaintiffs in the Suit and 5 married daughters. The Will is dated 01.01.1983. The plaintiffs being the executors and trustees, therefore, applied for Probate by filing the petition in this Court. Mrs. Iolante I. Regina alias Mrs. Agnes Fernandes, the defendant/caveator, the sister of the petitioners/plaintiffs filed caveat in Form No. 116 and an affidavit in support thereof. Therefore, the Petition was numbered as Suit.2. Initial issues were framed on 10.12.2007 which are as under:(1) Does the plaintiffs prove that citation was served upon the caveator/defendant? Yes.(2) Does the defendant proves that the last Will and Testament of Bella Cejetan Travasswo alias Bella C. Travasso dated 01....
Mrs. Luzia Natividade C.F. Velhoe Gomes (Deleted), Vs. Mrs. Ana Berta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3514
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this appeal, the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 67/93/A are challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 30.4.2004 delivered by Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panaji thereby partly decreeing the suit of the respondents and declaring that Inventory Proceedings No. 18/1969 taken from the stage subsequent to declaration of Cabeca de Casal i.e. Administrator dated 24.11.1969 to be null and void and thereby holding that the plaintiffs and the defendants are co-owners of the suit properties. The defendants No. 1 to 7 in said suit have been restrained by permanent injunction from selling/disposing, alienating, encumbering, mortgaging and developing the suit properties. The original defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants before this Court, defendants No. 5, 6 and 7 were the the appellants, but later on they have been transposed as respondents No. 5 to 7. They have chosen not to contest these proceedings and they filed an application accordingly. Original plain...
Syed Abdul Razzak AminuddIn and Hazrat Gaiban Shah Baba Syed Through I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3609
Shrihari P. Davare, J.1. Perused. 2. The challenge in the present Civil Revision Application is to the correctness and legality of the order passed below Exh. 46 in Suit No. 109 of 2007 by the learned Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad on 1.12.2007, thereby rejecting the plaint against defendant No. 1 therein under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 89 of the Wakf Act, 1995. 3. Briefly stated, the factual matrix of the matter are that the present petitioners (original plaintiffs) had filed Suit No. 109 of 2007 against the present respondents before the Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad for declaration that resolution dated 28.4.2005 and notification dated 29.11.2005 be declared as null and void and be quashed and also for the perpetual injunction and requested to restrain defendant Nos. 2 to 11 and 17 from causing the obstruction and interference in the day to day management and supervision of the Wakf institution Dargah Hazrat Gaiba...
Ramaesh K. Pullellu Vs. A-dor Welding Limited and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ172Bom
V.M. Kanade, J.1 The petitioner by writ petition No. 6462 of 1997 is challenging the order and award dated 27.5.97 passed by the Presiding Officer, 1st Labour Court, Pune in Reference IDA No. 98/89. Brief facts are as under:2. The petitioner herein was working as a welder in the respondent company and he was also a representative of the workers on behalf of the union. The petitioner had joined the company with effect from 2.5.76. 3. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 20.4.1986 in which it was alleged that he had instigated the workers to go on illegal strike and disobey the orders of the superior and had led nearly 35 workers to leave the factory without obtaining signature of any of the authorities. It was also alleged that he was loitering in the company instead of going to the department and was instigating the workmen to attend the funeral of Shri Tambe who expired on that day. It was alleged that he was pressuring the other workmen in other departments to follow him. H...
Gorai Machhimar Sahakari Sanstha Limited and Noel Vincent Kinny of Mum ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3435
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By way of this petition, the petitioners, Gorai Machhimar Sahakari Sanstha Limited and its President, have challenged the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 29th April, 1997, a copy of which is annexed as ExhibitB to the petition, on the ground that the same is illegal. The petitioners have also made various prayers such as directing the respondents to allot the land in dispute i.e. Survey Nos. 268, 269,270A and 270B in Gorai Village to the first petitioner society in accordance with the Government Circular dated 4th February,1983. It is also prayed that respondent No. 1 may be restrained from carrying on building, land reclamation or any other activity upon land bearing Survey Nos. 268, 269,270A and 270B in Gorai Village.2. During the course of hearing of the petition, learned Counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that though various reliefs have been claimed in the petition, he is confining the reliefs only in connection with the impugned order pass...
Airport Authority of India, National Airports Division and the Airport ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3489
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this Appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940; the Employer challenges the order dated 18/1/2006 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama in Special Civil Suit No. 51/97/A setting aside the Award dated 20/12/1996 of Arbitrator appointed by the parties as per agreement dated 30/9/1993 between them. Basic finding by said Court is that Award filed before it for making rule of court was not a suo motu act of arbitrator and it upheld the objection of contractor/ present Respondent that it was barred under Article 119(a) of the Limitation Act. The Respondent has also filed a cross-objection as its prayer to set aside that award on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in appointed arbitrator and his misconduct has been rejected. We have been assisted by Senior Advocate Shri Kakodkar for Appellant and Senior Advocate Nadkarni for the Respondent. Looking to the arguments and nature of controversy, we find that mentioning of the questions arisin...
In Re: Reliance Communications Limited, a Company Incorporated Under t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3340; [2009]94SCL219(Bom)
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. These Petitions are filed by the Petitioners to obtain sanction of this Hon'ble Court to the Scheme of Arrangement between Reliance Communications Ltd. (Petitioner in Company Petition No. 487/2009 - hereinafter referred to as the 'Demerged Company') and Reliance Infratel Ltd. (Petitioner in Company Petition No. 488/2009 - hereinafter referred to as 'the Resulting Company') and their respective shareholders and creditors where under the Optic Fiber Undertaking of the Demerged Company shall stand transferred to and vested in the Resulting Company with effect from the appointed date in terms of the Scheme without any further act or deed pursuant to Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The Demerged Company was incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 in Mumbai on 15th July 2004 under the name 'Reliance Infrastructure Developers Private Limited.'. Subsequently, the said name has undergone change and the present name of the Demerged Compa...
Vandana Bharat Kauthalikar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR49
Oka A.S., J.1. As per the administrative Order dated 10th July, 2008 this petition was ordered to be placed before the Full Bench of this Court.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has taken an exception to the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 8th August, 2007 by which the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to 'Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe' has been negatived. The writ petition along with a civil application filed therein was placed before a Division Bench of this Court (Coram : D.K. Deshmukh and V.M. Kanade, JJ.). The learned Judges who constituted the Division Bench delivered separate judgments on 28th January, 2008. D.K. Deshmukh, J., came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. V.M. Kanade, J. opined that the writ petition needed further consideration. In view of difference of opinion, the papers of the petition were placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and as stated earlier, the Hon'ble the Ch...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »