Mumbai Court November 2012 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.
M/S. Eagle Soraj Townships Private Ltd. and Others Vs. M/S. Eagle Agro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
1 The Applicants have invoked the Revisionary Jurisdiction of this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 19/1/2012 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon-Maval by which order the preliminary issue raised by the Applicants herein as regards the valuation of the suit has been rejected, and it has been held that the suit has been properly valued, and thus maintainable. The issue which therefore arises in the above Civil Revision Application is as regards the valuation of the suit. 2 The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Civil Revision Application can be stated thus; The Respondent herein i.e. Eagle Agro-Farm Private Limited is the original Plaintiff who has filed the suit in question being Regular Civil Suit No.12 of 2011 and the substantive relief claimed therein is in prayer clause (a) of the suit in question which is reproduced herein under for the sake of convenience. Defendants and/or the persons claiming through the defendants in...
Krushnarao Chandusa Solanki Vs. Miraj Real Estate and Investment Compa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
By this appeal, the appellant has taken an exception to the Judgment and Decree dated 28th February 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Kolhapur. 2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to with reference to their status before the Trial Court. The suit property forms part of a larger property bearing CTS No.340 admeasuring 6600 sq. meters situated at 'E' Ward, Station Road, Kolhapur. The suit property is more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the plaint which admeasures 6000 sq meters. 3. The first plaintiff is a private limited company and the plaintiff nos.1-A and 1-B are the Directors of the first plaintiff company. It is alleged in the plaint that the second plaintiff was the original owner of the suit property. It is alleged that by an agreement of leave and licence dated 24th September 1992, the second plaintiff had put the first plaintiff company in possession of...
Narayan Laxman Bodus Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
Oral Order: This matter was kept today as, on the last occasion after the arguments concluded, upon a suggestion of by this Court the parties agreed to explore the possibility of amicable settlement. However, today both parties submitted that settlement is not possible, even by accepting some amount in lieu of compensation for the petitioner's stay in the premises, till his life time. Hence, I proceed to pass the final order. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed on 2nd December 2011 by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Misc.Appeal No.3 of 2011. The proceedings are under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the Act). 3. It is the case of the respondent LIC that the public premises, more particularly described in the petition, belong to and are controlled by them. They have made a composite application ...
Ramchandra Jivatram Chetwani Through Power of Attorney Holder Mrs.Poon ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
P.C.: 1] In each of these matters the petitioners have been evicted by orders of eviction passed under Chapter VIII A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation's Act, 1949 (BPMC Act for short). The orders of eviction passed have been confirmed by the appellate authority and that is how these petitions. 2] The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in each of these petitions have urged that the orders of eviction are bad in law. These orders are not passed by the Commissioner of Pune Municipal Commissioner but by an authority or officer other than him which has not been delegated with the powers of eviction. The powers under Chapter VIII A and particularly section 81-B are quasi judicial in nature. The general power of delegation contemplated by section 69 of the BPMC Act would not take within its import the powers to evict unauthorized occupants from Municipal Premises. That power being quasi judicial in nature has to be specifically delegated. In the absence of such specif...
Pratibha W/O. Bapusaheb Andhare Vs. Bapusaheb S/O. Bhimrao Andhare and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the judgment and order of Criminal Appeal No. 35/2009, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. The appeal challenging the order made by J.M.F.C., Bhoom in Criminal Mis. Application No. 141/2008 filed under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred as the "Act" for short] is allowed by the Sessions Court. The protection order and maintenance order made by J.M.F.C. in favour of the petitioner are set aside by Sessions Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the second wife of respondent. She cohabited with respondent for 4-5 years after the marriage in his house, where he was living with first wife. It is her case that the respondent and his first wife drove her out of the matrimonial house on 1.11.2007 after giving severe ill-tre...
Hansraj Sohanlal Gouthi Vs. Standard Chartered Stci Capital Markets Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
The Petitioner, original Respondent, has challenged impugned award dated 13 July 2009 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, constituted under the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Bombay Stock Exchange (for short, BSE), basically the rejection of the counter-claim solely on the ground of limitation, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). 2 The dates and events are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present Petition. On 24 November 2007, Hansraj Gouthi suffered a major stroke and was in a critical condition, totally incapacitated till his death on 30 July 2008. On 23 October 2007, Respondent No.1 filed Arbitration Application before the BSE for claim of Rs.40,98,609.08 against the Petitioner. On 25 November 2007, the Petitioner denied the claim of Respondent No.1 stating that the same were fraudulent transfers and an amount of Rs. 33,50,814.02 was due and payable to the Petitioner. On 25 February 2008, the Petitioner filed ...
The State of Maharashtra Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
Oral Judgment: These five appeals have been preferred by the State of Maharashtra / acquiring body against the common judgment and award dated 30.1.2001 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in L.A.C. No.46/1992, 47/1992, 48/1992, 50/1992, 52/1992 enhancing the quantum of compensation from Rs.7500/- P.H. to Rs.15,000/- P.H. 2] Lands situated in village Rajur were compulsorily acquired for the public purposes i.e. for Rajur Irrigation Tank Project at village Rajur, taluka Kalamb, district Yavatmal vide notification dated 4.9.1988. On 6.10.1988 award was declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Dissatisfied with the inadequate compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer the land owners sought references. Evidence in the nature of previous sale instances and also income derived from land was adduced. Considering the same, the learned Reference Court fixed market value of the lands acquired @ Rs.15,000/- P.H. i.e. less than Rs.6000/- per acre. This ...
Vijay Lahu Patil and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
This appeal is directed against conviction of the appellants - original accused Nos.1, 17 and 19 to 26 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 304(Part II) read with Section 149, 452 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for one year; one year with a fine of Rs.200/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month; one year with a fine of Rs.500/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months; and one one year with a fine of Rs.500/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month respectively, on these counts imposed on each of them, on conclusion of Sessions Case No.55 of 1992 before the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibaug. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under :- Village Bokadvira is divided by factional strife amongst villagers. The appellan...
The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Smt. Radhabai Punaji Gedam and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
Oral Judgment: These appeals are arising out of the common judgment and award dated 11.2.2007 passed in L.A.C. No.216/2002 to 218/2002. 2] Lands situated in village Dabha, Tal Kelapur, district : Yavatmal were compulsorily acquired for construction of canal of Khemkund Irrigation Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on 31.3.1996 awarding compensation @ Rs.12,000/- P.H. and Rs.14,400/-P.H. Dissatisfied with this, the land owners / respondents herein sought separate references. They relied upon the decisions rendered in earlier references which were sought in respect of the lands acquired for the same project. The evidence about the income derived from the land was adduced. On that basis, the learned Reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.50,000/- P.H. Aggrieved by this judgment and award State has preferred these appeals. 3] The learned A G P criticised the judgment and award mainly on the ground that the enhancement to any extent was not justified beca...
Sangita W/O Ashok Wani Vs. Ashok S/O Keruji Wani
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 3. The petition is filed under section 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and also section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the judgment and order delivered in Criminal Revision Application No. 14/2010 by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. Judicial Magistrate (First Class) had granted maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioner and this order is set aside in revision by Sessions Court. This Court has perused the original papers. 4. The Sessions Court has held that in view of the contents of one document which is at Exh. 41, and in view of the provisions of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wife is not entitled to get maintenance. The Sessions Court has observed that in view of the contents of Exh. 41, it needs to be presumed that wife is residing separately from husband on her own accord. The Session...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »