Mumbai Court September 2009 Judgments

Vimal Builders, Through Its Partner Kishor Nandlal Shah Vs. Ketan Kant ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR398; 2009(111)BomLR3837

P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Since it is agreed between the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, both these matters are disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. In view thereof, the Appeal is admitted. Rule is issued in Writ Petition No. 641 of 2009. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 220 in First Appeal and for respondent No. 3 in writ petition waives service.2. Since the issue involved in the First Appeal and in the writ petition being common, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, both these matters are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. Facts in First Appeal may be noticed. The First Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd October, 2008, passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan, by which the learned trial Judge has held that the suit of the plaintiff i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 292 of 2008 is not maintainable as per Order II Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Cod...

In Re: Adoption of Payal @ Sharinee Vinay Pathak and His Wife Sonika S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR434; 2009(111)BomLR3816

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.The Issue1. The Petition before the Court raises an issue of the interpretation of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 amends and codifies the law relating to adoptions and maintenance among Hindus and specifies conditions for valid adoption. One of them is that if the adoption is of a daughter, the father or mother who wish to adopt the child must not have a Hindu daughter (or a son's daughter) living at the time of adoption. Parliament enacted the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to regulate the interface of the law with children in conflict with the law and to provide for the rehabilitation and social integration of orphaned, abandoned or surrendered children. Adoption is one of the techniques recognized by Parliament to facilitate the object of rehabilitation. The Juvenile Justice Act does not incorporate a res...

Prashant @ Pappu Pramod Narayan Saskar and Others Vs. Smt. Chhaya Sarj ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: Misc.Application No.1922/2006 for Stay stands disposed of as not pressed. This appeal is required to be allowed and complaint is required to be dismissed in view of both the parties having ended their dispute. They have filed joint affidavit. They mentioned that this consumer dispute arose out of misunderstanding and hence, they have settled all the disputes between them amicably. Hence, we pass the following order:- Order: 1. Appeal is allowed. 2. Impugned judgment and award passed by the Forum below is set aside in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. Complaint stands dismissed. 4. Amount deposited with the District Forum, Nashik by the appellant while obtaining stay order from this Commission be refunded to them. 5. No order as to costs. 6. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties....

Mrs. Mangala N. Lokhande, District-thane Vs. Ms. Prathama P. Mahajan, ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) This is an appeal filed by the original complainant whose complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum Mumbai Suburban of Bandra by its judgment dated 16/10/2007. 2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: 3) The complainant pleaded in the complaint that O.P. Smt.Prathma P.Mahajan was Chief Promoter of the proposed Prathamesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited. On behalf of the society she had received from her amount of Rs.2,90,000/- but no construction was made. No agreement was executed and refund was not given and therefore she filed consumer complaint claiming refund of amount paid by her to the Chief Promoter and also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum and also Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost. 4) The O.P. filed written statement and pleaded that in the year 1996, on the eve of womens year, some ladies including complainant came together a...

Balakisan S/O. Bansidhar Khandelwal and ors. Vs. Govinda S/O Shankar U ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3829; 2010(1)MhLj136

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.2. These two appeals can be continently disposed of by common judgment since they arise out of the judgment by which two appeals were disposed of. The appeals have been preferred by the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants.3. The facts giving rise to the appeals are as follows:Two sets of plaintiffs instituted two suits against the same set of defendants being Civil Suit Nos. 1079 of 1990 and 1211 of 1990. Defendant No. 1 is the son of defendant No. 2. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had prepared a private layout in survey No. 25. The same was known as Shri Khandelwal Nagar. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 offered the plots in the said layout to the public. The plaintiffs purchased those plots on various dates from defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The dates of said purchase are given in the schedule attached to the plaint. It is the contentio...

Kausarbag Co-operative Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR409; 2009(111)BomLR4178

Bilal Nazki, J.1. Earlier this petition was filed on the ground of inaction on the part of the respondents to take a decision. Thereafter, it appears that decision was taken and the petition is now challenging the Government Notification dated 3-2-2007.2. This petition has been filed by a society which claims that it was in possession of the land bearing Survey No. 12 (Part), situate at Kohdhava Khurd, Pune. The respondent No. 2 published a draft development plan for the City of Pune. In the said draft, the land mentioned above was shown as reserved for public garden. The petitioner raised objection to the said reservation by submitting various representations. The draft development plan was sanctioned by respondent No. 1 in 1975. The layout of the said land was approved in 1973 and 1975. Earlier to this, there was a sanctioned development plan of the year 1966, in which the petitioner's land admeasuring 3.54 acres was shown to be reserved for a garden. While sanctioning the layout of ...

V. Pichandi Sole Proprietor Shri Ambika Match Works Through Its G.P.A. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR394; 2010(112)BomLR114

P.R. Borkar, J.1. By this Appeal from Order the original plaintiff challenges the order dated 7th August, 2004, passed by the Additional District Judge, Aurangabad on application Exh.5 for temporary injunction filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 2003.2. The plaintiff/appellant has filed suit against the respondents for relief of perpetual injunction restraining them from selling safety matches, manufactured and marketed by them using the offending trade mark, which is similar to the trade mark on the safety matches manufactured by the plaintiff and for interim protection, application Exh.5 is filed.3. As per plaintiff/appellant he is proprietor of distinctive trade mark consisting of word 'PLUS2' along with distinctive device of heart visual also having distinctive get up by out arrangement and colour scheme. Such trade mark is adopted by the plaintiff in the month of May, 1984. The plaintiff/appellant is doing his substantial business in the sale of safety matches under the trade mar...

Balak S/O Mahadev Somkuwar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Ministry of Home A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj348

P.D. Kode, J.1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner, prematurely retired as Inspector (Executive) from services of Central Industrial Security Force (for short hereinafter referred to as CISF) has thrown challenge to order dated 30.7.2000 compulsorily retiring him passed by Inspector General (SWS), CISF, Mumbai and has prayed for quashing and setting aside same and reinstating him with continuity in service with full back wages and other financial benefits together with an interest at rate of 18% per annum since the date of his retirement. He has also prayed for saddling exemplary costs upon the respondents.2. The rival cases, in brief, as revealed from the proceeding can be set out as under:It is case of petitioner that he had joined service with CISF on 25.8.1975 and after completing training in the year 1976 he was posted as Sub Inspector (Executive) at Murmagaon Port Trust, Goa. Thereafter he was posted and worked at eighth different po...

Mohan S/O Babulal JaIn and ors. Vs. Bhanwarlal H. Chandak and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj1019

P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This is a transfer application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, by which the petitioners have prayed that the suit pending before the City Civil Court, Bombay, being No. 949 of 2007 may be transferred to the Original Side of this Court and be heard with the suit No. 2189 of 2007, which is pending before the Single Judge of this Court. This transfer application is argued before me at a great length as if this Court is deciding the suit itself.2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have already filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Bombay, being S.C. Suit No. 949 of 2007 praying that the appointment on the Board of Directors of Plaintiff No. 2 Company by which the defendants of the said suit have been appointed as directors is illegal, devoid and contrary to the provisions of law and the said appointment is not required to be acted upon. The present petitioners who are the plaintiffs in the suit have prayed for decree for permanent injunction restr...

Shri Yeshwant Laxman Pai Raikar, Son of Laxman Pai Raikar and Vs. Shri ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj903

A.H. Joshi, J.1. This is an appeal by unsuccessful defendants. They have suffered order of temporary injunction restraining them from selling or creating any third party interest in the suit property.2. Facts as disclosed from the records are as follows:(i) The suit property is the land surveyed under No. 224/3 admeasuring 8470 square metres of Village Farmagudi, Mangueshi, Bandora, Ponda Goa.(ii) On 1.8.2003 defendants executed agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs. This agreement is notarised on the same day.(iii) By the said agreement defendants agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs for consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/- ( Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Only ).3. Agreement represents that:(a) Out of agreed consideration part of payment of Rs. 42,50,000/- was made by the plaintiffs in cash, as and by way of part payment.(b) The balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was to be paid within a period of 12 months.(c) Final sale deed was to be executed within 60 days after the expir...