Mumbai Court September 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.
Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, Vs. State of Maharashtra, Departme ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3933
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Advocate for the Respondents waive notice. Having regard to the nature of challenge involved we decided to finally dispose of the matter at the admission stage itself, by consent.2. The Petitioner No. 1 is a Students organization registered under the Societies Registration Act in the year 1949. The Petitioners 2 and 3 are the office bearers of the Petitioner No. 1 organisation. By the present petition, the Petitioners are challenging the decision of the Respondents to introduce and implement the facility of ATKT (Allowed to Keep Terms) for the students who have failed in one or two subjects in Secondary School Certificate (SSC) examination and allowing such students to take admission in 11th Standard or first year Junior College, Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) course for academic year 2009-2010. According to the Petitioners in exercise of powers under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary ...
Mrs. Deeplakshmi SachIn Vs. SachIn Rameshrao Zingade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Bom16; 2009(111)BomLR4059; 2010(1)MhLj10
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Admit. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Pune dated 29th May, 2009 in Petition No. A230/ 2008 by which the learned Judge allowed the petition filed by the respondent and marriage between the petitioner and the respondent therein is dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter 'the Act'). It is the aforesaid decree of the trial Court which is impugned at the instance of the appellant, original respondent to the said petition.3. The respondent herein instituted the said petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. It is the case of the respondent before the Family Court that the marriage between him and the present appellant was solemnised on 17th February, 2002 at Udgir, District Latur according ...
Unity Realty and Developers Ltd., Under the Companies Act, 1956 Vs. Bw ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR333; 2009(111)BomLR3853
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The parties have no objection if this Bench heard this matter finally. Accordingly, heard the parties.2. The Government of Maharashtra (The GOM), some time in November, 2006 invited a tender for development and construction of a Hotel and Mall Project (The project) on Built, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis at Balewadi, Pune. The project was for a period of 60 years to build hotels with all amenities and facilities for participants of the 3rd Commonwealth Games which were to be held in Pune in October, 2008. The time was of essence for the project.3. The Unity Infrastructure Projects Ltd., (UIL) and Respondent No. 4BSEL Infrastructure Reality Limited (BSEL) were the joint successful bidders. A Letter of Acceptance dated 02.01.2007 (LOA) was issued in favour of the Unity Infrastructure Projects Ltd. (UIL) which is 100% holding company of the petitioner (URDL).4. On 31.01.2007 a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) entered into between UIL, BSEL and respondent No. 2Kamat Ho...
Abdul Riyaz S/O Abdul Bashid Kazi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4071
Shrihari P. Davare, J.1. Perused.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the learned respective counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing.3. The petitioner, namely Abdul Riyaz s/o Abdul Bashid Kazi, who has been convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with his father and 3 elder brothers, was sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and fine by the judgment and order rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2003 on 10.6.2004. The petitioner challenged the said judgment and order in Appeal No. 489 of 2004 before this Court and this Court confirmed the said judgment and order of the conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir on 2.2.2006. Thereafter the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition No. 1531 of 2007 before Honorable Supreme Court along with application for delay condonation. The Honorable Supreme Court allowed the said application for condonation of delay, b...
Jayantilal D. Doshi (Since Deceased Through His Heirs Smt. Indira Jaya ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4172
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The suit is filed on 15th April, 1999 for recovery of Rs. 16,23,130/with interest. The defendant is a registered Broker and a proprietor of M/s. Hiralal Liladhar.2. The plaintiff out of his saving lent and advanced to the defendant the amount as per the claims, as and by way of business loan. The defendant agreed to pay the interest at the varied rates from time to time. The defendant, as agreed, made part payment of interest and on closing of the financial years; the defendant sent confirmation statement showing the amount due and payable lastly on 27th May, 1996. Therefore, as on 01/04/1996, the amount was Rs. 11,26,978/. The defendant paid Rs. 23,232/on 15/06/1996 and Rs. 23,232/on 01/02/1996 which were duly credited in the Account and therefore, the suit based on balance principal amount on Rs. 10,81,514/with interest of Rs. 5,41,616/as on the date of the filing of the suit.3. The plaintiff, therefore, demanded through the advocate notice dated 27th March, 1999...
Govindrao S/O. Sadanand Tandle (Deceased Through His L.Rs. Smt. Prayag ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj786
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This Civil Revision Application is preferred by the original tenant who has suffered decree of eviction at the hands of the Rent Controller, Aurangabad, in Case No. 1985/ARC/89, decided on 12.07.2007, which judgment and order is further upheld in Rent Appeal No. 8 of 2007, by the Principal District Judge, Aurangabad, on 01.01.2009.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as follows:The present applicants are legal representatives of original defendant Govindrao Tandale, who was admittedly tenant occupying shop premises and a room admeasuring in all 20'5' x 12'3', situated at Aurangabad. The property is described in paras 1 and 2 of the plaint. The respondents are legal representatives of original plaintiff landlord Babulal Patel. The suit for possession is filed under the provisions of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (for short 'Hyderabad Rent Act'). As per para 3 of the plaint, original plaintiff Babulal Patel had three ...
Shri Shahaji Kisan Asme and ors. Vs. Shri Sitaram Kondi Asme and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Bom24
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Second Appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs being aggrieved by refusal of shares to them in the property of their grandparents.2. Before dealing with the question of law raised in this Appeal, it will be useful to state the facts in brief. Defendant No. 1 - Sitaram had two sons, namely, Kisan and defendant No. 2 - Ramchandra. Defendant Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are the daughters of Sitaram. His son Kisan died in 1968, leaving behind his first wife Bhagirathibai, who is defendant No. 7, second wife Vimal, who is plaintiff No. 4 and three sons, who are plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and a daughter, who is defendant No. 3. They are children from his second wife Vimal. The plaintiffs i.e. the sons and the second wife of Kisan, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 215 of 1978 seeking partition and separate possession of the joint family property. According to them, defendant No. 2 Ramchandra was given in adoption to one Gangaram Pawar and, therefore, he did not have any right, title or interes...
Lok Bharati Vs. Election Commission of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR433
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is a unrecognized registered political party. It desires to have a common symbol to be alloted to the candidates sponsored by it in the ensuing Assembly Elections. The symbol claimed is cup and saucer from the symbol list.3. Similar Writ Petition No. 7208 of 2009 was filed by the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS for short) before this Court. But this Court having noticed the interim orders passed by the Apex Court in Writ Petition No. 132 of 2009 and Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7379-80 of 2009 and having found that the issue was before the Apex Court had not entertained the said writ petition and directed the petitioner therein to approach the Apex Court. It appears from the orders which are produced before this Court in Special Leave to appeal (Civil) No (s). 21965 of 2009 and Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21965 of 2009 that the MNS has approached the Apex Court and the Apex Court has passed an interim order on 14th Sep...
Maharashtra Navnirman Sena Through Its General Secretary, Mr. Shirish ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR329
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of an order passed by respondent No. 2 on 11th April, 2009.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a political party, petitioner No. 2 is a Registered Trust, and other petitioners are citizens. Respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 11th April, 2009, which reads as under:In continuation of the Commission's Order No. 3/4/ID/2009/SDR dated 6th April, 2009, the Commission directs that 'Ration Cards' issued on or before 2822009 shall also be permitted as an additional document for establishing the identity of electors at the General Election to the House of the People in the State of Maharashtra.3. Earlier to it, an order was passed on 6th April, 2009. The order dated 11th April, 2009 is in addition to the one dated 6th April, 2009.4. The grievance of the petitioners is that ration cards are not basically identity cards, and as such, ration cards should not be taken as proof of identity of a voter, as there are chances of mi...
Shankar @ Vishwambhar S/O Kacchiram Waghmare and Smt. Kantabai @ Nalin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4397; 2010(1)MhLj121
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. All these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment since the question involved in these appeals is identical.2. The owners, whose land has been acquired under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development Act), 1957, have come up in appeal.3. The facts are as follows:The land of all the appellants has been acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas Act. Notification under Section 4 of the Act for the acquisition was issued in 1990 and Notification under Section 9 was issued in the year 1995. The Land Acquisition Officer under the Act determined the compensation. Since the compensation awarded was found to be inadequate, a reference was sought to the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas Act. The Tribunal enhanced the compensation. Different amount of compensation was determined in respect of each claimant. The claimants, however, feel aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal had awarded inadequate compensation and had not awarded interest under Secti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »