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.
Sports Field Construction Vs. the Bombay Municipal Corporation and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2011
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant had filed L.C. Suit no.1407 of 1994 against the respondents alleging some encroachment on its land and wrong alignment at the time of measurement by the authorities. Several Notices of Motion were also filed. The suit along with a contempt Notice of Motion was dismissed in default on 17.4.2004 on the ground that none for the plaintiff nor its Advocate was present when the matter was called on that day. The plaintiff took out Notice of Motion No.2126 of 2004 on 14.5.2004 for recalling the order dated 17.4.2004 and to restore the suit along with the contempt Notice of Motion. The said Notice of Motion for restoration came to be dismissed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court by the impugned order dated 6.10.2004. That order is challenged in the present appeal by the original plaintiff. 3. In the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion for restoration, the history of litigation between the parties was given. It was state...
Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune Vs. Shree Jayant Vyankatesh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2011
1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th March 2006 passed by the 13th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Pune, dismissing CivilAppeal No. 584 of 2005 filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Small Causes Court, Pune in Municipal Appeal No. 38 of 2000. 2. Respondent is the owner of the property bearing House No.9651, Survey No. 723/1/5, Rajendra Nagar, Sadashiv Peth, Pune. He had initially constructed a ground floor structure admeasuring 1162 sq. ft. on his land in the year 1968 or thereabout. After issuing a notice to the respondent, the petitioner Municipal Corporation fixed the rateable value at Rs. 1620/-. The respondent carried out extension of the ground floor by constructing some additional premises on the ground floor and also constructed first floor in his property in the year 1999 or thereabout. The total new construction was to the extent of 1412 sq. ft. On 14th October 1999, the petitioner issued a special notice proposing ...
Tatyasaheb Limbraj Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2011
1 This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 6-3-2004 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, convicting the Appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302, 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC. 2 The incident of murder has taken place on 26-4-2003 at Barshi, District Solapur in the morning at 6.30 to 7.00 a.m. Victim Renuka Tatyasaheb Patil was the wife of the Appellant. The Appellant and the Victim got married on 6-2-2003, hardly 2 1/2 months prior to the incident. At the time of marriage two tolas of gold, some utensils and an amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of dowry was given to the Appellant. As per the case of the prosecution, the Appellant and the victim had a smooth married life just for one month, but thereafter a demand of Rs.1 lac was made by the Appellant and the said demand of Rs.1 lac could not be fulfilled by the father P.W.-1 of the victim or her relati...
M/S.Sira Constructions Vs. Sudhir Vishnu Aanjarlekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2011
1. Rule returnable forthwith, Mr.Dani i/b waives service for the respondent. By consent heard forthwith. 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 6 December passed by the District Judge-1, Khed, District Pune rejecting his application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Petitioner is the judgment debtor. An award was passed against the petitioner in an arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act"). As the award was not satisfied, respondent put the award in execution. At the first instance, the petitioner made an application at Exhibit 12 before the executing court contending that award was not executable on seven grounds viz: 1. There was no subsisting contractual agreement between the parties. 2. The arbitration agreement was not at all in existence between the parties. 3. Mr.Aagharkar was never appointed as an arbitrator. 4. The alleged dispute was never referred to Mr.Vilas Aagharkar. 5. T...
PaackinIndia Vs. Vsr Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Bhosale waives service for the respondent. By consent, taken up for final hearing. 2 By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the executing court below Exh. 14 in Special Darkhast No. 212 of 2009. The petitioner is a decree holder. He had filed a summary suit bearing Special Summary Suit No. 58 of 2008 against the respondent for recovery of spb/- money. That suit was decreed and the respondent was directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 2,10,270/ together with future interest at the rate of 4% per annum until its realization. Since the respondent did not make the payment, the petitioner filed an execution petition no. 212 of 2009. In the execution petition, the respondent made an application at Exh. 14, purporting to be an application under section 47 read with Order 21, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. By that application the respondent contended that he had made payments of certain amounts to the petitioner between 26...
Adv. Pallavi W/O Abhijit Mahashabde. Vs. Shri Milind S/O Balaji Gandhi ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1) Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2) The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 27/1/2011 passed by the 21st Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur whereby the amendment application (Exh. 74) filed by the original plaintiff, i.e. respondent no.1 herein came to be allowed and the plaintiff was directed to carry out amendment in the plaint within 14 days from the date of the said order. It is required to be noted that the suit as originally filed, is one challenging the notices under Sections 53 and 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 issued by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to the plaintiff. The said notices are in respect of the alleged unauthorized construction carried out by the plaintiff. The present petitioner, who claims to be owner of the property in question, came to be joined as party defendant to said Regular...
idbi Ltd. Vs. the Official Liquidator.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1. A Company, viz. Maharashtra Explosives Ltd. (Company under liquidation), incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, "the said Act"), having its registered office at Plot No.2, Villa Marina, 924, Nelson Square, Nagpur-13, was ordered to be wound up on 12-8-2001 by this Court in Company Petition No.7 of 2001 and the Official Liquidator was appointed with usual powers and duties under the said Act. In compliance of the said order, the Official Liquidator took the possession of the assets, properties and books of accounts of the said Company, being factory assets situated at Kelzar, District Wardha. By an order dated 9-11-2001, the Official Liquidator was permitted by this Court to sell the assets and properties of the said Company situated at Kelzar, District Wardha, and Singroli (M.P.). The Official Liquidator realized a sum of Rs.40 crores by sale of the assets and properties of the said Company. The sale was confirmed by this Court on 3-10-2007 in favour of the highest b...
Mohammad Murtuza Mohammed. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.563 of 2002 convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A read with 120B of Indian Penal Code. 2 The prosecution case is that PW1 Smt.Zubeda Khatun Gafur Raien and PW2 Abdul Gaffar Mohd.Muslim Raien were residing together in room no.15, 2nd floor, `B' block, Nagpada, Mumbai 400008. PW2 Abdul Gaffar Mohd.Muslim Raien was involved in manufacturing of school bags. His factory was situated at Shukla Street, Ded galli, Kamathipura. PW2 Abdul Gaffar Raien normally used to left the house at about 11.00 A.M and returned home at about 6.00 P.M. There were about 10 to 15 labourers working in his factory. 3 It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.4.2002 after PW2 left the house, the appellant Mohammad Murtuza Shaikh came to the house of complainant and told PW1 Zubeda that her husband was standing nearby t...
Devayani Yeshwant Shivkar and ors. Vs. Smt. Laxmibai Chavan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2011
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th April 2001 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Appeal No. 671 of 2000 setting aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and thereby allowing Misc. Notice No. 440 of 2000 taken out by the respondent for setting aside an exparte decree. 2. The original petitioner who is now represented by his legal heirs is the landlord. The original respondent who is now represented by his legal heirs was the tenant of the petitioner in respect of a room bearing no. 10 at 106/D, Hirabai Govind Shivkar Niwas, Shriram Galli, Worli Koliwada, Mumbai-400025, (for short "the suit premises"). The petitioner filed a suit bearing RAE & R Suit No. 729/1667 of 1995 against the respondent for possession. The suit summons was served on the respondent not personally but by substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for sh...
Yavatmal District Mahesh Vs. Narayanrao Ukandrao Paikrao
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. By means of this Appeal, the appellant (original complainant ) has challenged the validity, legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 11th June, 2008 in Summary Criminal Case No.2130/ 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Yavatmal whereby the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The fact, in brief are these: the complainant Credit Co-op. Society had filed a Complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Yavatmal which was registered as summary Criminal Case No.2130/2007. The complainant alleged that it is a registered society doing the business of advancing loans to its members. Smt. Sadhana Dharamchandraji Kochar is the Manager of the said society doing business in the name as "Yavatmal Zilla Mahesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Yavatmal. The accused is a resident of Umarsara Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal. He needed loan for construction of a house in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »