Mumbai Court August 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.
United India Insurance Company Ltd, Maharashtra Vs. Ajay Balasaheb Sol ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar Honble Presiding Judicial Member: (1) Mr. Santosh Patil has not filed Vakalatnama. He has got instructions to appear on behalf of the Respondent. We accepted his statement and heard him on behalf of the Respondent. (2) In this case, the Complainant had purchased Maruti van by taking loan from Vitthal Rakhumai Patsanstha, Kolhapur. Since he purchased the vehicle by taking loan from the Society he had mortgaged the vehicle with the Society. The said vehicle was stolen away on 28.07.1998. Then F.I.R. was lodged by the Complainant and even after lodging F.I.R. the said vehicle could not be traced out by the police and ultimately Complainant/Respondent herein was required to lodge insurance claim with the Insurance Company. Insurance Company appointed Surveyor - M/s. The Indian Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur. Surveyor gave its report dated 18.08.1999 and recommended that market value of the vehicle at the time of loss due to theft would be `90,000/- to `95,000/-. The...
All the Abovenamed Having their Vs. Ms. Goregaon Unnati Chs Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per P.B. Majmudar, J.) 1. Since it is agreed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that this appeal can be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself, we have heard the matter on merits at length forthwith. Hence admitted. Learned counsel and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respective parties appear and waive notice of admission. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 21st July, 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 7389 of 2008 by which the writ petition filed by the present appellants has been dismissed by the learned single Judge. The said writ petition was filed by the appellants challenging an order passed by the Judge, Co- operative Court No. IV at Mumbai, dated 12th September, 2008 in C.C- IV/96/08 by which the Co-operative Court declined to grant any interim relief sought by the present appellants in the said dispute. The said order was challenged by the appellan...
Asian Development Corporation and ors. Vs. Versova, Andheri and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants. 2. Both the Appeals are filed by the original Defendants in S.C.Suit No.5237 of 2005 wherein the present respondents are the Plaintiffs. The dispute in both the Appeals is common. Temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the respondents in a Notice of Motion taken out by them and the Notice of Motion taken out by the present Appellants in their suit was dismissed. Therefore, the Appellants have preferred these two Appeals arising out of those Notices of Motion. 2. Admittedly, the Appellant no.1-Asian Development Corporation was the original owner of the land bearing CTS.No.1030 at Yari Road, Versova, Andheri (West) Mumbai and had made construction of a building on the said land in the year 1983 after having constructed the building. It sold away the flats in the said building. The purchasers formed Kavita Cooperative Housing society, which is the respondent No.1. 3. In 1994, for the fi...
Khushalchand Bhairulal Varma Vs. High Court of Judicature at Bombay an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.):- 1. On 28 July 2008, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, invited applications for filling in 14 vacancies for the post of District Judge in the Judicial Service of the State of Maharashtra. The process of recruitment was governed by the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008. The High Court conducted a written examination, which was followed by an interview. A list of 14 candidates who were eligible for appointment was drawn in order of merit under Rule 6(3) (a). The Petitioner was placed at Serial No.10 of that list. The Petitioner submitted an attestation form and in column 11(a), he disclosed the fact that he had been prosecuted in Regular Criminal Case No. 218 of 1993, which had ended in acquittal on 20 November 2001. On 4 August 2010, a communication was addressed to the Petitioner requiring him to disclose the relevant papers of the Criminal case. The Petitioner responded by his reply dated 9 August 2010. On 23 August 2010, a Co...
Sau. Chandrabhagabai Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Adv. Mr. K.J. Tandale has filed Vakalatnama for respondent no.2, and the same is taken on record. Moreover, respondent no.2 has filed affidavit in reply, and the same is taken on record. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. Learned APP Mr. D.R. Korde accepts notice upon Rule for respondent no.1, and learned Adv. Mr. K.J. Tandale accepts notice upon Rule for respondent no.2. 5. Present application has been filed by the applicant (original complainant), wife of respondent no.2, under Section 482 and 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying that Sessions Case No. 278/2010, pending before learned 6th District & Sessions Judge at Ahmednagar, pertaining to Crime No. I-230/2010, registered at Police Station, Parner (District : Ahmednagar), for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Pe...
Abdul Sattar Mahetab Khoriwale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. At the request of the learned Counsel for the applicants, leave to amend granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. Learned APP Mr. V.D. Rakh accepts notice upon Rule for respondent no.1, and learned Adv. Mr. V.D. Gunale accepts notice upon Rule for respondent no.2. 5. By the present application filed by the applicants (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have prayed that Charge Sheet No. 150/2010, dated 1-11-2010, submitted in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, in S.T.C. No. 1412/2010 (R.C.C. No. 431/2011), in respct of Crime No. 278/2010, dated 23-10-2010, registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, Latur (Taluka & District : Latur), for the offences punishable under Section 354, read with Section 34 of IPC, and also regarding offence...
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Municipal Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
JUDGMENT: (Per R.G.Ketkar, J.) 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to forthwith grant to the petitioners Development Rights Certificate (for short D.R.C.) of total area of 31057.30 sq.meters for the construction and development of the amenity viz.Recreation Ground (for short R.G.) as set out in the petitioners applications dated 17.04.1998 (Exhibit 'K'), 03.11.2009 (Exhibit 'O') and 23.07.2010 (Exhibit 'Q'). 2. Petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No.2 has entered into an agreement to purchase part of the property owned by Petitioner No.1 and has for valuable consideration been irrevocably appointed as a constituted attorney of the Petitioner No.1. Respondent No.1 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short the 'Corporation'). Respondent No.2 is the Municipal Commissioner and the Respondent No.3 is Executive Engi...
Dr. Dattatraya Laxman Shinde Vs. Nana Raghunath Hire
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
JUDGMENT: 1 The Appellant , a young doctor who became a victim of paraplegia as a result of injuries sustained in a motor accident has taken an exception to the judgment and award made by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which his claim 2 FA.717.99.doc for compensation has been partly allowed. The Appellant met with than accident on 15 December, 1993. He met with an accident when he was about 25 and half years old and by that time, he had acquired qualification of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine (B.A.M.S.). As a result of fracture to 12 thoracic vertibra , He suffered from complete paraplegia both motor and sensory below thoracic 12 with complete bladder and bowel involvement. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is Rs.8,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum against the claim of Rs.50,00,000/- made by him in the claim petition. 2 The accident occurred on 08:30 am on 5 December, 1993. At the time of accident, the Appellant was proceeding towar...
Swati R. Khinvasara Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
JUDGMENT (Per A.M. Khanwilkar, J.):- 1) By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of the above mentioned matters together as the same involve common issues. 2) The first Writ Petition (Writ Petition No.1430 of 2011) is filed by the student who has passed her 12th Standard examination (Senior School Certificate 2011) from Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) with 88.4% marks, but has not succeeded in getting admission in Government Law College at Mumbai (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'GLC'). The grievance in this petition, as originally filed, was in respect of the method adopted by respondent- college of deducting 5% marks of candidates, who have passed the qualifying examination from the Board other than the Maharashtra Secondary School Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Maharashtra Board"), for preparation of merit list of students to be admitted in the First Year of Five years Law course. It is stated that the said petitioner was desirous of getting admission...
Jitendra Himmat Biraris and ors. Vs. Kiran Gulabrao Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. All these petitions involve common question of law and are based on same factual matrix, as such are decided together. 2. The petitioners are elected as councillors of Zilla Parishad, Dhule in the General Elections of 2008 having contested the said elections as belonging to Nationalist Congress Party (hereinafter called as "N.C.P." for the sake of brevity). The party position of elected councillors is as under : 1. Indian National Congress : 21 2. Nationalist Congress Party : 08 3. Shiv Sena : 14 4. Bhartiya Janta Party : 09 5. Independent : 03 Total : 55 3. After the declaration of the result, the Returning Officer called special meeting for the election of the President and Vice President of Zilla Parishad Dhule to be held on 30th December, 2008 at 3.00 p.m. In the said special meeting one Sudhir Sudhakar Jadhav representing Shiv Sena party was elected as President and Bharat Nanabhau Ise representing Bhartiya Janta Party was elected as Vice President. The petitioners cast vote to...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »