Mumbai Court November 2011 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.
Vaishali Abhay Mandle Vs. Sakharam Vithal Mandle.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties. 2. Brief facts as disclosed in the writ petition are as under : Petitioner No. 1 is wife and petitioner No.2 is son of respondent No.2. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are wife and son of respondent No.3. Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 are wife and son of respondent No.4. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have purchased the suit property from respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It is the case of the petitioners that, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 sold out the suit property to respondent No.5, who is not agriculturist. Said property is sold on 19-12-1995 and 15-11-1997. 3. The petitioners herein instituted Special Civil Suit No.97 of 2008 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar against the respondents for partition, separate possession and declaration that the sale deeds dated 19-12-1995 and 15-11-1997 executed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are null, void and not binding upon the share of the plaintiffs...
Yousun Dada Patel (Dead) Through Lrs and ors. Vs. Laxman Prabhat Rodu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1. By the present petition, the petitioners - original plaintiffs in RCS No.1118/1998 have questioned the correctness and legality of the order dated 10.12.2002 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad in MARJI No.494/2002. It appears that Rule has been issued in this petition on 24.08.2004. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. For better appreciation of the rival submissions it is necessary to advert to the few facts, which gave rise to file the present writ petition. It appears that the petitioners have filed RCS No.1118/1998 for recovery of possession and perpetual injunction from creating any third party interest in the suit property, against the respondents. It further appears that after the suit summons was served, respondents appeared in the suit through advocate, however failed to file written statement. It also appears that certain opportunities were given to the respondents / defendants to file written statement, however no written s...
Shri Subhash Bhiku Navarat Vs. Balkrishna Kashiram Shigvan.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1 Rule, by consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The above Petition has been directed against the order dated 27/9/2011 passed on the Application-Exhibit-6 which was an application for temporary injunction, pending the Appeal filed by the Respondents herein being Regular Civil Appeal No.29/11. 3 The Respondent herein is the original Plaintiff who has filed Regular Civil Suit No.4/11 seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property mentioned in plaint Para 1A, and mandatory injunction/possession in respect of the suit property mentioned in Para 1B of the plaint against the Petitioner herein who is the Defendant in the said suit. 4 The Defendant was put in possession of the area of 5 gunthas in Survey No.26 Hissa No.2/1B which totally admeasures 81 R. By Sammati Patra, the Plaintiff consented to the Defendant in putting up a poultry shed in the said 5 gunthas, the Plaintiff is also the co-borrower with the defendant for obtaining loan from one of the b...
The Vice President (Sales) Colgate Palmolive Research Centre and ors. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2) The parties are referred as per their original status. The plaintiff filed a suit for settlement of accounts and recovery of amount being Special Civil Suit No.212/2008 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Latur. An application, below Exhibit-14, in terms of Order VII Rule 11(a)(d) of CPC, was moved by the defendants, praying that the suit of the plaintiff to be rejected for the reasons stated in the application and basically on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. 3) The learned Judge, on appreciating the facts and the documents on record, by order dated 4th February, 2010, rejected the said application, and hence the defendants (revision applicants herein) have preferred this civil revision application, questioning the said order of the learned trial Court. 4) The legal position, that has been canvassed by both the learned Counsel, needs to be put in a condensed form, as under - (a) The Law of Limitation i...
Shri Madan Rao and Others Vs. Dhansampada Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member There is delay of 16 days in filing Appeal nos.A/10/854 and A/10/855. Their sister appeals are already for consideration along with these appeals. The short delay is neither intentional nor any malafides could be attributed to the applicants/appellants. Hence, for the reasons mentioned in the application, finding them as sufficient to explain delay, we condone the delay in filing the appeals. Misc.application nos.MA/10/441 and MA/10/442 are allowed, accordingly. This group of four appeals is being disposed of this common order since they involve identical facts and common question of law. Appeal no.648/2010 and Appeal no.854/2010 pertains to the order passed in consumer complaint no.680/2009, Dhansampada Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Gadhinglaj v/s. Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Sangli and others, while Appeal no.649/2010 and Appeal no.855/2010 arises out of order passed in consumer complaint no.681/2009, Dhansampada Nagari Sahak...
Sameer Patil Vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
Oral Order: S.B. Mhase, President: [1] Heard Adv. Irfan A. Shaikh for the Complainant. This matter was kept yesterday i.e. 16/Nov/2011 for hearing on admission. Since the point of limitation was raised by the State Commission in view of provisions of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for brevity), the Learned Counsel for the Complainant sought time and has per his request the matter is placed today for admission. Heard. [2] Section 24-A of the Act mandates the Consumer Fora shall not admit a consumer complaint unless it is filed within a period of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen and, therefore, a duty has been cast upon the Consumer Fora at the time of hearing the complaint for admission to see as to whether the complaint is filed within the prescribed period of limitation as provided under the said Section and further to see if there is a delay, whether any application for condonation of the delay is made. [3] The facts involved...
Dr. Ashok Shroff and Another Vs. Surmukh Singh Mahajan and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
Oral Order: S.B. Mhase, President: [1] Heard Adv. Uday Wavikar on behalf of the Revision Petitioners and Mr. Surjit Singh Mahajan, the Respondent No.1 appearing for himself and on behalf of the other Respondents. Order dated 22/10/2010, passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum below an application dated 14/4/2010 filed by Mr. Surjit Singh Mahajan to bring on the record the names of widow and other sons of the deceased original Complainant, namely Mr. Sarmukh Singh Mahajan on record in Consumer Complaint No.205 of 2005 has been challenged by the Revision Petitioners. By this impugned order legal heirs of the deceased original Complainant are directed to be taken on the record. However, the original Opponents/the Revision Petitioners herein has challenged this order on the ground that all the legal heirs of the deceased original Complainant are/have not been brought on the record by the heirs of the deceased original Complainant and only male legal heirs hav...
M/S. K.H. Sutar and Associates Represented by Its Proprietor Vs. Haris ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
Oral Order: S.B. Mhase, President: [1] Heard Adv. V. A. Abhyankar on behalf of the Appellant/ original Opponent. [2] The order under challenged is dated 30/09/2011 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in Consumer Complaint No.564 of 2005. By this order, the Appellant/original Opponent is directed to execute conveyance within a period of sixty days in favour of the Respondent/original Complainant Society. If the conveyance is not executed within the stipulated period, for each day, the Forum has imposed penalty of Rs.100/-. The District Forum has further directed the Appellant/ original Opponent to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of mental agony and Rs.3,000/- by way of costs. This order is challenged by the Appellant/original Opponent before the State Commission. [3] The Respondent/original Complainant is a co-operative housing society of the flat-purchasers. The Appellant/original Opponent is admittedly a builder/developer and his uncle is...
Shri Pradip Vasant Bavkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and the Registr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1 Heard the Petitioner - party in person and the learned counsel for Respondent no.1 and the learned counsel for Respondent no.2. 2 Rule. 3 By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 4 By this Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 26th February, 2010 passed by the Principal Secretary and Legal Advisor, Law and Justice Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 for compulsory retirement of the Petitioner from judicial service of the State of Maharashtra. 5 Relevant facts of the matter are as under: In the year 1976, the Petitioner completed his Bachelor of Arts degree and thereafter in the year 1981 LL.B degree. After completing the Law degree, the Petitioner enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Counsel of Maharashtra and Goa. After completion of 15 years practice as an advocate he joined judicial service on 19th November, 1997 as Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay (District Judge cadre). Thereafter, he was a...
Raghunath Dhondu Vani Vs. Ilahi Babulal Mujavar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original complainant), challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29th February 2000, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Pachora, in Regular Criminal Case No. 133 of 1991, thereby acquitting the respondent no.1 (original accused) for the offence punishable under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The appellant no.1 and respondent no.1 are referred to as per their original status i.e. complainant and accused, respectively. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant is Accountant of the firm carrying on business under the name and style, Bajoriya Oil Refinary, Pachora; whereas the accused was working as Cashier in the said firm for about 6 - 7 years till 1-9-1991. There were two other sister firms, namely, Adarsha Engineering and Oil Millers, and Bajoriya Fats and Proteins. The accused used to maintain accounts of afor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »