Mumbai Court October 2011 Judgments
SadruddIn Jivabhai Jafari Vs. Both Ro Laxmibai Ward, GondiA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. Heard. Admit. Taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties. 2. This appeal is preferred by landlord against order of the learned Single Judge holding that the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable but remanding the matter to the District Judge, Gondia to decide the appeal in accordance with law. The suit filed by the appellant before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Gondia for eviction, possession and arrears of rent was proceeded ex parte and eventually decreed. The tenants preferred an appeal against the ex parte decree along with an application for condonation of delay. They also filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree. The District Judge, Gondia dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the ex parte decree and the civil suit was also dismissed. Thereafter, the trial Court i.e...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India, Thr. Secretary Vs. Pramod Sadashiv Thakre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners have challenged order dated 24.02.2011 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal solely on the ground that the respondent found to be Colour Blind. On 01.08.2003, the respondent was appointed as Civil Mechanical Transport Driver after due selection. He was found fit for the appointment on the basis of Medical Certificate from Civil Surgeon which declared him normal. The petitioners-authorities did not administer any other test to the respondent and he was duly appointed as Probationer. Suddenly, on 29.08.2005, the respondent's services were terminated on the ground that he has been found to suffer from colour blindness. Aggrieved by the order of termination, the respondent has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 2117/2006. The Central Administrative Tribunal, vide order dated 24.02.2011 allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent the...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Ganapati Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
JUDGMENT {PER A.M. THIPSAY, J.} : 1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 30th May, 1991 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No.21 of 1990 convicting the Appellants, who were accused in the said case, of the offences punishable under Sections 147 IPC, 148 IPC, 302 IPC and 325 IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, sentenced the Appellants (each of them) as follows :- (a). For the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.200/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten days; (b). For the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.300/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days; (c). For the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal C...
Tag this Judgment!Ninad Sah. Gruharachana Sanstha Mydt. Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Chandrachood for the Appellant and Mr. Kulkarni for the Respondent. 2. Mr. Kulkarni requested that instead of admitting the Appeal and keeping it pending, the Second Appeal should be immediately taken up for final hearing and in view of this specific request and with the consent of the Advocate for the Appellant - Mr. Chandrachood, the Second Appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. In the year 1969, the property of the Appellant was not included in the Pune Municipal Corporation limits. It is the case of the Appellant that it has constructed a compound wall in the year 1969. The PMC limits were extended in the year 1997 and the property was included within the PMC limits. On 3.4.2001, a notice under Section 478 of the BPMC Act, 1949 was issued calling upon the Appellant to demolish the said compound wall. The Appellant filed RCS No. 555/2001 in the Court of learned C.J. J.D., Pune for declaration and permanent injunction for challenging the said notice. A ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mohinidevi and ors. Vs. the Official Liquidator of Ms. Rai Bahadu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per DHARMADHIKARI J.) 1] By this appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act the order dated 29.09.1985 passed by Company Judge of this Court on Company Application Nos. 17 of 1993 and 27 of 1994 granting applications moved by respondent-Official Liquidator to bring legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1 and of one of his legal heirs has been questioned. The legal representatives are permitted to be brought on record in Company Application Nos. 27 of 1986 under Section 542 and 543 of Companies Act. 2] Rai Bahadur Shreeram Durgaprasad Limited is the company being wound up as per orders dated 16.11.1981 in Company Petition 1 of 1981. The Official Liquidator on behalf of said company filed application No. 27 of 1986 on 04.11.1986 under Sections 542 and 543 of Companies Act 1956, against deceased Durgaprasad son of Shreeram Saraf and 6 other persons. On 21.11.1986 Company Judge issued notices in the matter. The Official Liquidator took out misfeasance summons d...
Tag this Judgment!Punj Lloyd Ltd Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.): 1. The Petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to challenge the award of a contract by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) - the First Respondent - to the Third Respondent, a Company incorporated under the laws of Singapore. The Petitioner claims a price preference on the ground that it is a domestic bidder. According to ONGC, the Petitioner has failed to establish its claim to a price preference. The Bid Evaluation Criteria required inter alia, the submission of a certificate in original of the statutory auditor of the bidder indicating through various details that no more than fifty percent of the work measured in terms of value has been subcontracted to foreign bideders. Moreover, the certificate had to be submitted with the unpriced bid. According to ONGC and the Third Respondent (to whom, a decision has been taken to award the contract), the certificate issued by the statutory auditor ...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Datta Developers Through Its Partner Dattu @ Dattatraya Dagadu D ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
S.B. Mhase, President: Heard both sides. This appeal is directed as against the order passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in consumer complaint NO. 07/2010 decided on 15.3.2011. By the order passed, the appellant/original opponent is directed to pay amount of Rs.2,74,000/- with 9% interest from 17.10.2008 till the realization of amount. By way of mental harassment, Rs.5,000/- were directed to be paid and cost of Rs.2,000/-were directed to be paid. This appeal is filed by the original opponent in view of the above referred order. Therefore, the respondent is the original complainant. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as complainant and opponent as they are referred to in the complaint. The opponent is a builder and developer and he has floated a scheme. From the said scheme, complainant had agreed to purchase a flat for a consideration of Rs.2,74,000/- and this amount was completely paid to the opponent. However, since within a st...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Tools International Vs. Ramniklal Jethalal Shah Proprietor of Raj ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. Heard Mr. Jakatdar, Advocate for Complainant thoroughly to his satisfaction. This complaint has been filed by M/s Tools International, a partnership firm dealing in the business of importing and trading in industrial machinery. In order to carry out the said business, industrial machinery which is to be sold in the market is required to be stored in the godown and for the said purpose, initially the Complainant has purchased on 28.12.2007 patra shed godown No.B/70 on the ground floor, admeasuring 14404.00 sq.ft. equivalent to 1338.94 sq.mtrs. The said Sale Deed was duly registered with the Registrar on 14.01.2008 and Opponent handed over the possession of the said godown No.B/70 to the Complainant on or about 18.6.2008. 2. The said godown thus sold alongwith land. It is the case of the Complainant that the land and super structure both are sold by the Opponents to the Complainant. It appears that there was some difficulty in the contents of the Sale Deed and therefore, Rectification...
Tag this Judgment!Magma FIn Corp Ltd Public Ltd Co Vs. City Corp Krishna Galve
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
Heard both sides. This appeal is directed as against the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur District in consumer complaint No. 144/2009 decided on 27.10.2009. By this order, original opponents are directed to deliver the vehicle which was seized by them from the Complainant. Opponents were directed to pay the amount of `7,61,696/- at the rate of 9% interest from 22.1.2009,in case, the vehicle has been disposed by the Opponent, by way of mental agony, `10,000/- and `1,000/- as cost. As against this order, appeal has been preferred and filed in the State Commission on 9.8.2010. Admittedly, there was 245 days delay and therefore, appellant has filed MA No. 10/415 for condonation of delay. Notice in the said was received by the Opponents. Original complainant appears through their advocate Mrs. Pise and objects the condonation of delay. The first ground which has been made out for condonation of delay is that the certified copy though received on 4.11.2009 by t...
Tag this Judgment!Pradip S.Dixit. Rng. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the Accused- Applicant. The conviction recorded by the th learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7 Court, Dadar, Mumbai by order dated 10.5.2011 was questioned before the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No.118 of 2011. By an order dated 19.9.2011 the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision. Hence the writ. 2. The case propounded by the Complainant- respondent No.2 was, he has carried out activities of supply of CC TV cameras and lodged installations at hotel of the Accused-Applicant. It was on going process of 4/5 bills since 2007, 2008. There was another contract in January, 2009. Contract of January,2009 was extended up to June, 2009. After the work as per schedule in discharge of liability the Accused-Applicant has issued a cheque dated 7.5.2009 drawn on Allahabad bank in the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Three lacs fifty thousand only). The said cheque on presentation was dishonoured. Consequently, statutory notice was issued....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »