Mumbai Court July 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 Gaurav Singhania Vs. Matrix Agri Science Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
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 22/02/2011 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, by which order the application filed by the respondents for unconditional leave to defend under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of the Civil Procedure Code came to be allowed and resultantly unconditional leave to defend came to be granted to the respondents. 3) Without burdening this order with unnecessary details, the facts which are relevant can be stated thus - The petitioner herein is the original plaintiff, who had filed the Summary Suit No.15/2010 for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,35,450/-, which was for the goods sold and supplied by the petitioner. The said summary suit was preceded by a notice dated 25/09/2009 being issued by the petitioner to the respondents inter alia calling upon the respondents to pay the said a...
Shavak Burjorji Patell Vs. Jamshid Kersi Dalal and Others.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1 By this appeal from order, the Appellants have taken an exception to the judgment and decree passed by the District Court in an appeal by which an order of remand has been passed. This is an Appeal against an order of remand. In the case of Narayanan versus Kumaran [(2004)4 SCC 26], the Apex Court held that an Appeal under clause (u) of Rule 1 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be entertained only on the ground available under Section 100 of the said Code. Accordingly, by order dated 16 March, 2007, this Court has framed the substantial questions of law. 2 The present appeal has been preferred by the original Defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 and 10. The Respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff and the other Respondents are the other Defendants. On 15 March, 1982, a deed of partnership was executed by and between the Defendant No.1 and one Mr.Framroze Burjorji Patell for carrying on the business in partnership under the name and style as M/s.Dorabjee and Company. The said Mr...
Sandeep S/O Popatrao Saikad Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. Rule is made returnable forthwith and present application is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Leave to amend the prayer clause granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 4. By the present application, preferred by the applicant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant prays that the first information report, on the basis of which, Crime No. 126 of 2010 is registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 328 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5, 7 and 12 of the Food Adulteration Act, be quashed and set aside, as well as prayed that charge sheet No. 85 of 2011 filed on the basis of said C.R. No. 126 of 2010 also be quashed and set aside. 5. It is alleged that on receipt of the secret information, on 8.10.2010, without any notice, the premises bearing C.T.S. No.997/1, belonged to one Takale, was raided by the police of...
Bhavik K. Shah Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1 The Petitioner has, in these proceedings under Articled 226 of the Constitution, sought a declaration that the detention of certain goods after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation of six months after its seizure is illegal and unsustainable by virtue of the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2 During the course of the hearing, counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has, in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Jayant Hansraj Shah v. Union of India1, urged a more restricted submission for relief. In the judgment of the Division Bench it has been held that it is only in a case where no provisional order has been passed for the release of seized goods and if no notice has been issued under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for confiscation of goods would Section 110(2) be attracted and the Department would be bound to release the goods. In the present case, it is an admitted position that by an order dated 24 May 2011, the ...
Tukaram Ganpat Kale and anr. Vs. Ankush Kondiba Jadhav and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge an order dated 2nd June 2011 of the Collector, Pune by which it has been declared that each of the petitioner stands disqualified as Member of Panchayat Samiti, Indapur under section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Local Authority (Members Disqualification) Act, 1986 (the Act for short) and the Maharashtra Local Authority (Members Disqualification) Rules, 1987 (for short Rules). 2. Respondent No.1 to this petition is also a Councillor of the Panchayat Samati. The Panchayat Samiti is constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti's Act, 1961. It is the case of the petitioners that they are elected as Councilors of respondent No.2 on 23rd February 2007. Respondent No.1 claims that meeting of the party took place on 12th March 2007 at which he was elected as party leader and was authorised to prepare and issue whip. It is the case of first respondent t...
Smt. Bhanumati Harishchandra Bujad Vs. the State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up on board for hearing. The respective counsels for respondents waive service of Rule.2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following substantive relief in terms of prayer clause (a) in paragraph-18: "a. By an appropriate writ/order/direction of this Hon'ble court the Respondent No. 2 & 3 be directed for making appropriate changes in the 7/12 Extract in favour of Mira Bhayander Corpration in respect of suit property i.e. land bearing Old Survey No. 334, New Survey No. 26, Hissa No. 7A, admeasuring 868.51 sq. meters situate, lying and being at Village Bhayander (West), Taluka and District Thane, in the Registration District and Sub-District Thane and now within the limits of Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation by following the procedure as laid down under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966."3. The case of the peti...
Datta S/O Vitthalrao Khalkonikar Vs. Shriram Mandir Deosthan Trust, Wa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
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 15/02/2011 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, by which order the application filed by the respondent No.1-Trust under Sec.36 (1) (a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act was disposed of by granting permission to the respondent No.1-Trust to sell the property in question to the respondent No.2 herein.3) The questions which are arise for consideration in the above petition as to whether the price offered by the respondent No.2 herein for the property in question is the market price of the property? And whether the order passed meets the requirements of Section 36 (1) (a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act? (Hereinafter referred to for brevities sake as the "said Act").4) The factual matrix involved in the above petition can be stated thus -The petitioner is the trustee of the respondent No.1...
Mr. Shrikant Keshavrao Rakvi and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up on board for hearing. The respective counsels for respondents waive service of Rule.2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the following substantive relief in terms of prayer clause (a) in paragraph-18: "a. By an appropriate writ/order/direction of this Hon'ble court the Respondent No.2 be directed to 'Reconsider' the applications dated 11/8/2010 and 13/7/2010 filed by the Petitioners for N.A. in respect of the properties mentioned therein by following the procedure as laid down under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966."3. The case of the petitioners can be summarized as follows: The Petitioners are owners of various lands situated at village Bhayander (West), Taluka and District Thane within the limits of Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation. Respondent No. 3 company was claiming to be a superior holder in respect...
Bhausaheb S/O. Laxman Kshirsagar Vs. Laxman S/O. Bhimraj Kshirsagar an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Respondent nos.3 and 4 absent, although served. 2. By the present petition filed by the petitioner (original respondent no.1) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and under Sections 482 and 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prayed that judgment and order dated 24-3-2004, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Rahuri, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 365/2002, and the judgment and order dated 9-9-2004, rendered by the learned 5th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Criminal Revision Application No. 130/2004, be quashed and set aside by issuance of writ of certiorari. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The petitioner herein, namely, Bhausaheb, and respondent no.3, Rambhau, and respondent no.4, Bharat, are sons of respondent no.1, Laxman, and respondent no.2, Smt. Gayabai. The respondent nos.1 and 2, namely, Laxman and Smt. Gayabai i.e. parents of petitioner and respondent nos.3 and 4 herein, filed an applic...
Rajen @ Vipul Kantilal Mota Vs. Mrs. Sheetal Rajen @ Vipul Mota
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. The Petitioner was the Respondent in the Petition filed by the Respondent in the Family Court for divorce and maintenance. The Petition was filed in 2010 by the Respondent wife. The Respondent has settled in Kuwait. The parties had at one time desired to settle their dispute and obtain divorce by mutual consent. The settlement failed. The husband was required to be represented by a new Advocate. This took some time. The written statement was not filed for more than 90 days after the Petition was served, though an unaffirmed copy of the written statement was served upon the Petitioner and shown to Court. 2. The learned Judge of the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai refused to extend time and rejected the purshis in that behalf. The order of the learned Judge, which is impugned in this Petition dated 6th January 2011 shows that since 90 days time is over, it cannot be extended "for any reason". Consequently, the learned Judge fixed the Petition for hearing without the written statement of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »