Mumbai Court June 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.
Shri Vilaschand S/O Deochand Khedikar and ors. Vs. Shri Bhimchand S/O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
01) The Learned Second Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, by its judgment and order dated 9.3.2007, has decreed the Regular Civil Suit No.404 of 2002. The petitioner/defendant, who is the tenant has been directed to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent/plaintiff and enquiry into the future profits has also been directed to be made. The decree for eviction has been passed on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide need. Regular Civil Appeal No.229 of 2007 filed by the petitioner challenging the decree passed by the Small Causes Court has been dismissed by the judgment and order dated 5.2.2010, by the Appellate Court. 02) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised three points (1) the landlord has given an admission that there are other properties owned by him and the said properties have not been disclosed, (2) the burden to establish the bonafide requirement is upon the landlord, however the Trial Court has shifted the s...
Kamalkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Shankar S/O Pundlik Th ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 15.09.2010, by which order the application exhibit 107 for referring the documents mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application, more specifically in the table appurtenant to the said paragraph, came to be rejected. The said documents are in the nature of receipts allegedly executed by the respondent no.1 herein in favour of the petitioner society. The said documents were produced during the evidence of the plaintiff. Though the said documents are marked, they are not exhibited and have been marked as articles, since the defendant denied his signature on the said documents. 3. The trial Court rejected the said application on the two grounds. Firstly, the said application was filed belatedly and that the signature of the defendant no.2 can be compared with the signature of the defendant no.2...
M/S. Ismt Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
1 The challenge in these proceedings is to an order passed by the Designated Authority by which an investigation under the provisions of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and For Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, has been terminated. 2 The Petitioner engages in the manufacture and sale of Seamless Tubes and Pipes. The Petitioner filed an anti-dumping application before the Designated Authority alleging dumping of seamless tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of iron, alloy or non-alloy steel (other than cast iron), "whether hot finished or cold drawn or cold rolled, of an external diameter not exceeding of 273 mm or 10"," originating in or exported from the Peoples Republic of China. The Petitioner sought an initiation of investigation and a levy of anti-dumping duty on the import of the goods in question. The application of the Petitioner was supported by two other companies - Maharashtra Seamless Limited (MSL) and Ji...
Shaikh Gaffar S/O Shaikh Abdulla Vs. Gajanan Bajirao Chaudhari and ors ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-21-2011
1) Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2) The above petition takes exception to the order dated 31/8/2010 passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur whereby the application (Exh. 136) filed by the petitioner in the suit filed by him being Regular Civil Suit No. 211/99 came to be rejected. 3) By the said application (Exh. 136), the petitioner was seeking to amend the prayer clause so as to substitute Patwari Halka No. 37 by Patwari Halka No. 34-A. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the said amendment sought was not on account of any subsequent development and that no reason has been given by the plaintiff as to why the amendment was moved at the said stage. 4) During the course of hearing of the petition, Shri Bhide, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though in the amendment application Patwari Halka No. 34-A has been mentioned, the petitioner in...
Shri (Dr.) Mahendra S/O Bhaurao Kaikade Vs. Sau.Ranjana W/O Mahendra K ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 14/02/2011, by which order the application Exh.5 came to be allowed and maintenance at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month each to the respondent-wife and the two children came to be granted. 3. The petitioner herein is a Medical Practitioner having general practice at Talasari, which is in rural Thane. Though it was alleged by the respondent herein that the income of the petitioner was Rs.1,00,000/- per month, the Trial Court has fixed the interim maintenance at Rs.10,500/- in aggregate. The learned counsel Shri B.G.Kulkarni on behalf of the petitioner submitted that he had fairly stated before the Family Court that his client i.e. the petitioner is ready to pay Rs.7500/- as maintenance in aggregate for the respondent/wife and the two school going children. In my view, considering the fact that...
Murlidhar Deosthan Bamarda Vs. the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 14/06/2010 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, by which the application under Section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. The subject-matter of the application under Section 36(1)(a) of the said Act was land bearing field Survey No.101 of village Bamarda, Tq.Warora, Distt.Chandrapur. The said land was sought to be sold by the Trust on the ground that there is no yield from the land nor any income can be applied to the Trust and since Sabha Mandap and Deosthan were to be constructed, there was a necessity to sell the said land. 3. Pursuant to the tenders invited, the Trustee concerned received three tenders wherein the highest price offered by the bidder was Rs.10,00,000/-. It was, therefore, the case of the Trustee ...
Anandt Hiraman Ghatole Vs. Sau. Nirmala Dinesh Hazara and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. Heard Mr Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. H Lingayat, for respondent no.1. I have also patiently heard respondent no.3, party-in-person, who is personally present and made submissions on his behalf as well as respondent no.2. 3. The petition questions the order as to issuance of process dated 25.3.2009 passed by learned first Judicial Magistrate, First Class Chandrapur in Complaint Case No. 129/2009. The facts of the case as they stand are these : It appears that one Sau. Nirmala Dinesh Hazara by occupation a teacher, resident of Shivaji Chowk, Chandrapur, lodged the complaint alleging that she had married with Dinesh Hazara, some 20 years prior to her marriage and have begotten two sons namely, Shreenath, aged about 19 years and Loknath, aged about 16 years out of the said wedlock. She is residing with her husband Dinesh since her marriage. The accused no.1-Anant Hiraman Ghatole (pe...
The Municipal Council Vs. Arvind S/O Keshavrao Bhusari and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-20-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The Judgment and Order dated 29th September, 2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur in Complaint (ULP) No.47 of 2006 is the subject-matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.105 of 2010 and the Judgment and order dated 29th September, 2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur in Complaint (ULP) No.47 of 2006 is the subject-matter of challenge in W.P.No.106 of 2011. The petitioner -Municipal Council has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Since common issue arises in view of the final direction, which has been issued in the operative part of the impugned judgments and orders, the above petitions are taken up for hearing together and disposed of as such. 4. For the sake of convenience, facts in above Writ Petition No.105 of 2010 would be narrated. The petitioner is a Municipal Council, established under the provisions of Mahara...
Harish S/O Ratanlal Alimchandani Vs. Brijlal S/O Zamandas Nenwani and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-19-2011
01) This petition challenges the order passed below Exh.6-A i.e. the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.11 of 2010. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Washim, has allowed the application for amendment. 02) The notice for final disposal of the matter was issued on 1.9.2010 and the proceedings of the Special Civil Suit No.11 of 2010 were stayed.03) Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties.04) Shri A.K.Chaube, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant no.1 has urged that the Trial Court has allowed the application for amendment without even issuing notice. He has further urged that by way of amendment, the entire nature of the suit is changed. The suit was initially for partition and separate possession of the property, but by way of amendment, the relief of specific performance of agreement dated 25.3.2005 has also been added. Thus, there is change in the n...
Vithal Mhasuji Gadhe Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-17-2011
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and order dated 7-12-2000, rendered by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1998. 2. It appears that the accused nos.1 to 5 faced the trial under Sessions Case No. 16 of 1998 for the charges levelled against them under Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and the appellant herein i.e. original accused no.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 30...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »