Mumbai Court September 2011 Judgments
Nandanvan Vidya Mandir. Vs. Deepali Gundu Surwase.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. Learned Counsel for respective respondents waive service of Rule. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 20.06.2009, passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Appeal No.15/2007. Petitioners herein are Respondents No.1 & 2 in the said appeal and Respondent No.3 herein is the original appellant. The said appeal was filed by Respondent No.3 herein challenging the order of termination dated 15.06.2007. The copy of the appeal memo and also grounds taken in the appeal are placed on record at Exhibit-A on pages 17 to 69 of the compilation of this Writ Petition. Therefore, the facts leading to filing of such appeal are not repeated herein since those are extensively stated by the appellant in the appeal memo. It appears that after recording the evidence, considering pleadings ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Maruti KolaThe Vs. Vinayak Nivrutti Shendkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
JUDGMENT. 1. The writ petition arises out of the Reference under Section 85A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Tenancy Act,1948" for the sake of brevity and convenience). Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 282 of 1977, in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baramati, for declaration and possession of Gat No.1723, admeasuring about 68 Ares, situate at village Karanje, taluka Baramati, district Pune, corresponding to old survey No. 247/5 and 247/6 admeasuring about 32 Ares and 35 5 wp-5236-89 Ares respectively (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land"). The petitioner contested the suit, wherein he contended that the suit land was given to one Gajabai alias Gajrabai, widow of Genu Shendkar, in lieu of maintenance and she was the absolute owner of the suit land. The petitioner contended that in the year 1953-54 said Gajrabai orally leased out the suit land to him on 1/3rd crop share basis and since then...
Tag this Judgment!Shri NitIn Himanshu Sinha Vs. Shri Pankaj Narayan KarvA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
JUDGMENT [PER P.D. KODE,J.] :- 1. Mr.Rajiv Patil learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners, out of the reliefs prayed, are pressing the Petition only for the relief of quashing and setting aside Crime no.621 of 2007 and investigation effected therein. The petition is considered only for said reliefs as pressed. 2. The said Crime No.621/2007 was registered with respondent No.4- Kothrud police station, Pune, on 14.8.2007 at 18:00 hours for offence under section 406 r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, upon the information / complaint lodged by respondent No.1 (proprietor of Shri Balaji Computers) against petitioners -Directors of Kraft Wagon Design Private Limited (Company registered under Companies Act, 1956) and respondent no.5. It was alleged that though 37 computers for use on monthly rent of Rs.1450/- per computer were entrusted to petitioners and respondent No.5, in the month of August,2005, uptill the date of lodging the complaint, they failed and neglected t...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Kamlesh Gandhi Vs. Union Bank of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) 1. Some time in 1997 the First Respondent, Union Bank of India granted credit facilities at its Mumbai Samachar Marg branch to a partnership firm by the name of Jivanlal and Sons. The two partners of the firm at the material times were an HUF called Kamlesh Gandhi of which the Petitioner is the Karta and the wife of the Petitioner. The firm had availed of these credit facilities which were secured by personal guarantees executed by the Petitioner and his wife. On 31 May 2007, the account of the partnership firm was classified as an NPA. The First Respondent instituted proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 by filing Original Application No. 28 of 2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 30,06,17,891.66 together with interest in respect of the outstanding dues towards the partnership firm. The First Respondent also initiated proceedings under the Securitis...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Rafique Barkatulla Khan Vs. Mr. Shahenshah HussaIn Iqbal.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The original plaintiff-appellant is taking exception to the judgment and order passed below exhibit 56 in Special Civil Suit No. 82/2008 by the 6 th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane on 28th July, 2011. The plaintiff instituted Special Civil Suit No. 82/2008 claiming declaratory decree that the Development Agreement dated 20th April, 2006 as well as the power of attorney of the same date executed by defendant no.1-respondent no.1 herein in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to the development of the property as valid and subsisting. The plaintiff has also sought a declaration that the plaintiff is only and exclusively entitled to develop the said property and construct buildings thereon in pursuance of the agreement dated 20th April, 2006 as well as the General Power of Attorney executed on the same date and in furtherance thereof, the plaintiff is solely entitled to the exclusive,quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the said property to the exclusion of a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhausaheb S/O Hiraman Mokale and ors. Vs. Laxman Shankar Gaikwad
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. This Civil Application is filed for condonation of delay, in filing the Appeal From Order against the judgment and decree, passed by the learned District Judge-9, Aurangabad in R.C.S.No. 241 of 2005. 2. It is stated in the application that, after passing of the judgment and decree by the lower appellate Court, the advocate for the applicants- appellants was under impression that he has filed an application for certified copies of the Judgment and decree, and the copies are awaited. However, after arrival of the applicant No.3 for collecting the certified copies, the Advocate went to the copying section for collecting the copies, it was revealed that the application was not at all filed. It is further contended that, thereafter, immediately the applicants filed the copy application for obtaining the certified copies, and got immediately certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree. After obtaining the certified copies of the Judgment and decree, the same was handed over to th...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh P. Thakkar Vs. M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. The Petitioner who is alleged to be a guarantor and director of the company i.e Prabhu Hira Ice and Cold Storage Ltd has challenged the Award dated 23 July 2008 by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). By the Award, the liability is imposed in the following terms : "(a) The present Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do jointly and/or severally pay to the Claimants a sum of Rs. 6,33,746.06/-, (Rupees six lakhs Thirty Three thousand seven hundred forty six and paise six only), as per the particulars of the claim, with interest @ 3% p.m on the principle amount of Rs.3,33,746.06 (Rupees three lakhs thirty three thousand seven hundred and forty six and six paise only), from 2nd March 2005, as per the particulars of claim, till payment or realization thereof. (b) The Arbitration cost and the fees fixed at Rs. 2,500/-, shall be equally paid by the claimants and the Respondent. (c) Initially the Arbitration cost and the fees shall be paid by the claimants a...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Naim S/O Syed Vajir Vs. Samina Syed Naim and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment dated 30.05.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Beed in Criminal Revision No.92/2010 by which the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the order dated 29.10.2010 passed below Exhibit-22 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.586/2008. 3. Such of the facts, as are necessary for the decision of this petition, may briefly be stated thus- Respondent No.1 has filed an application under the Domestic Violence Act before JMFC, Beed bearing Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.205/2008. A separate application, seeking interim maintenance and certain other directions was filed on 18.06.2008. Application for interim maintenance was contested by the petitioner-husband, however the same came to be allowed on 21.08.2008. It is observed by the trial court that the petitioner to pay financial assistance @ Rs.5000/- u/s 20 of the Domestic Vi...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Raghunath R. Shingate. Vs. Jayant Gajanan Pathak and Others.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. This is an Appeal preferred by one of the Obstructionists for challenging the Judgment and Order dated 7th December, 2009 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai. The first ash Respondent is the original Plaintiff. It is not in dispute that the first Respondent filed a suit under Section 6(1) of the Specific Reliefs Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") for possession of the suit premises against the second to fourth Respondents. The suit was decreed. The execution of the Decree was obstructed by the Appellant and two others. Therefore, a Chamber Summons was taken out by the first Respondent by invoking Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code"). By the impugned Judgment and Order, the said Chamber Summons has been made absolute. The Appellant has preferred this Appeal by relying upon Rule 103 of Order XXI of the said Code. 2. learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first Respondent rai...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Dattaprasad Ramvilas Lakhotia and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally, by consent. 2. This Application is for quashing complaint dated 17.7.2010 i.e. Crime No. I-277/2010 registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The copy of complaint is at page 16. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued in support of the application. The points pressed by him, are summarized as follows:- (i) The dispute/subject-matter of the contract is of purely civil nature. (ii) There is no element of cheating in the initial stage of the promise or representation. (iii) When a party fails to perform promise on his/her part, other side elects to treat it as a breach of promise, in no case, treating it to be a case of breach, amounts to cheating. (iv) Even upon accepting every word and sentence contained in the complaint to be true, still no offence is made out. 4. The learned Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant has...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »