Mumbai Court August 2009 Judgments

Shankarlal Nathumal Chandak Deceased by His Heirs Rajibai Shankarlal C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2010Bom4; 2010(1)MhLj147

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. All these three appeals arise out of the common judgment in the appeals filed by the defendants. Though original suits were different, all the three appeals were admitted by one word order 'Admit' and no questions of law were formulated at the time of admission. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned judgment, the following substantial questions of law arise in the present appeals:1. Whether the suits for redemption of mortgage executed in 1880 were barred by limitation ?2. Whether the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 has no application to the mortgage executed in 1880 and as a result, suit for redemption of mortgage itself is not tenable in law ?2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgments and the relevant documents. Facts of each of the appeals may be briefly stated.SECOND APPEAL No. 220 OF 19863. Property involved in this appeal is City Survey Nos. 1147 and 1148 (Old No. 3294) situated at Nashik. ...

Shri Prabhakar S/O Late Rajaramji Lambat Vs. Shri Shantaram S/O Late R ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3411; 2009(6)MhLj71

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by the original defendant No. 1, he having lost before the District Judge in the first appeal. The parties shall hereinafter be called as the plaintiffs and the defendants.2. The facts shorn of details are as follows The plaintiffs and the defendants are sons of one Rajaram Lambat. Rajaram Lambat held joint family property. In order to avoid there being any dispute between family members, all members of the family decided to effect the partition. Accordingly, a partition took place between the plaintiffs, defendants and their father and their another brother. The said partition took place on 23/12/1974 and it was reduced to writing. It is a registered partitiondeed. Share was allotted to each one of the sons of Rajaram as well as to Rajaram. However, no share was allotted to the wives of Rajaram and they had signed the partitiondeed giving their consent for not allotting any share to them. One of the conditions of the said partitiond...

Suhas Bhand Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3774

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. These matters arise out of the Reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 24th September 2008 upon the question of law relating to the resignation of a Director of a Limited Company or a private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 in a criminal proceeding initiated against such Director of such Company under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act). 2. The Petitioners in each of these Petitions are one of the Directors of the Company by name Enbee Infrastructure Limited (the Company) which availed of and obtained a loan from Respondent No. 2 herein. The loan agreement was entered into on 29.12.1999 between the Company and Respondent No. 2. The loan agreement has been signed by one of the Petitioners in these Petitions who has been arraigned as accused No. 9 in the criminal complaint. Pursuant to the execution of the loan agreement and obtaining the loan from Respondent No. 2, the Comp...

Bajrang Gangadhar Revdekar Vs. Pooja Bajrang Revdekar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2010Bom8

P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Marriage between a man and woman is considered to be a sacred ceremony. It is a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally. The husband and wife performs the marriage ceremony with a fond hope that they will stay together for the rest of their life and both of them will have love and affection amongst each other and if any issues are born out of the said wedlock they will be looked after by them. With this pious objective, the marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act are taken place and that too in a sacred manner in the presence of a priest. Therefore, the said ceremony is a sacred ceremony which is not required to be treated lightly by either spouse treating it as a child's play. It is said that marriages are made in heaven but they are broken on earth. Appropriate care is required to be taken to see that such marriages are not broken lightly and that is how laws are enacted for providing dissolution of marr...

Goa State Pollution Control Board Through Its Environmental Engineer V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR460

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Y.V. Nadkarni waives notice for the respondent. The matter is heard finally by consent.2. By this petition, the petitioner which is a statutory body, constituted by the State Government in pursuance of Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, challenges an order passed by the learned President, Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, Goa dated 13th August, 2009. The respondent is a partnership firm, registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. A consent to operate the industry in favour of the respondent-Company, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent, has been renewed by the Goa State Pollution Control Board by its dated 28th May, 2009 under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act 1981' for short). According to the respondent, somewhere on July 31, 2009,...

Mrs. Savita Dattatraya Karandikar of Bombay, Indian Inhabitant the Sol ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj431

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present Petition is for Probate of the last Will dated 20.04.1986 and Testament of late Smt. Umabai Sadashiv Karandikar (the deceased) of Bombay, a widow, who died on 3rd September, 1988.2. As a caveat was filed to the Petition, the same was converted into the present Suit.3 This Court, after hearing both the parties, framed the following issues on 02.04.2009:1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the Will dated 20.04.1986 of late Smt. Umabai Sadashiv Karandikar has been duly executed by her in accordance with law?2. Whether defendants 4a to 4c prove that the testatrix was in her proper state of mind and mentally fit to understand the text of the Will?3. Whether the defendant Nos. 4a to 4c prove that the Will executed by the deceased was under undue influence, force and/or by misrepresentation?4. What order?4. The petitioner led evidence of one Uday Madhusudan Mahajan, through Affidavit dated 02.12.2006 being attesting witness to the Will.5. The defendants/caveat...

Mrs. Fiona Francis James Through Her C.A. Mr. Francis James and Anothe ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. Complainants filed complaint no.15/2008 and also filed Misc. application no.156/2008 seeking condonation of delay. In the complaint so many prayers are clubbed together and on bear perusal of the complaint, it would be seen that the causes of actions which accrued right from 1998 are bundled together to file this complaint. Since there is delay in filing the complaint, this condonation of delay application has been filed. The reasons for delay have been mentioned in nutshell in para 4 of the rejoinder, after seeing the reply filed by the O.P. We would like to reproduce para 4 of the rejoinder filed by the complainants to know what exactly complainants case is in respect of delay accrued in filing this complaint. Sub para 4 is reproduced as under:- With reference to para 1, the delay in respect of refund of amount in filing compliant on these cause of actions are 6 years and 122 days and delay in respect of money spent for ele...

Mr. BipIn Natwarlal Ganatra, Indian Inhabitant Vs. Rohan P. Shah, Hind ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR480

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Dahyabhai Lallubhai Shah ('the testator') died on 3rd May 1999, in a manner of speaking, at a ripe old age of ninety one. Probate was granted by this Court on 22nd December 1999 of his last Will and Testament. The Petitioner who claims to be a nephew of the testator's wife seeks revocation of the Probate.2. About three years prior to the execution of his will, the testator settled his property in trust by a deed of 28th June 1994. Under the Deed of Trust the testator, apart from himself, appointed two other trustees, namely (i) Mr.Rohan Shah and (ii) Mr.Hari Taneja. The object of the Trust was inter alia to encourage and promote fundamental and applied research in the fields of science and technology, arts, philosophy and the social sciences in India. In order to effectuate the purpose of the Trust, the trustees were under the terms of the Deed, empowered to interact with the academic community and research bodies on the one hand, and with industry and commerce o...

The Parbhani Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Through Its Chief Ex ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ631Bom

S.S. Shinde, J.1. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the Judgment and Order dated 10/5/2006 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling authority, Nanded under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') in Application No. 4 of 2004 and Judgment and Order dated 7/8/2007 by the Dy. Commissioner of Labour and Appellate Authority under the Act in Appeal No. PGA No. 15 of 2006.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents were employees of the petitioner/Sanstha and they have retired from services on the respective dates. It is the case of the petitioner that after retirement of the respondents, the petitioners has determined the amount of gratuity and paid the same to them as retirement benefits and the respondents accepted the said amount without any protest. It is further case of the petitioners that the appellants have already fulfilled first condition in 2nd proviso of Section 7 of the Act by making admi...

Ganpati Narayan Nikam Vs. Ramchandra Bhiku Savant,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj948

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The present Second Appeal has been filed challenging the decision of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No. 274 of 1984. That decision confirms the Judgment and Order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vita in Regular Civil Suit No. 63 of 1978. Both the courts below have held that the plaintiff had proved that one Dadu Narayan Nikam had bequeathed the suit property to him by a Will and that Dadu was in a sound state of mind when he executed the Will. Both the courts below have further held that the defendants had proved that the defendant No. 2 was the bonafide purchaser of the suit property for value without notice and therefore he was entitled to retain possession of the suit property.2. Two substantial questions of law which arise in the present Second Appeal are:(a).Whether the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act are applicable to the facts and circumstances in the present case when there are no pleadings ...