Mumbai Court August 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.
Sheshrao S/O Chirkutrao Ingle Vs. Santoshrao Jagobai Yelekar Since Dec ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission as a notice of final disposal was issued to the respondents by an order dated 11.11.2011 and the respondents are duly served with the notice. 2. The petitioner is the original defendant. A suit was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitioner for eviction and possession. The respondent-landlord had pleaded that he was entitled to possession of the suit premises under section 16(1)(a),(b) and (g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It would not be necessary to refer to the pleadings in regard to the claim of the respondent under section 16(1)(a) and (b) as both the authorities had rejected the claim of the respondent for possession on those grounds. Since both the courts have concurrently held that the respondent-landlord was entitled to possession of the suit property under section 16(1)(g) of the Act of 1999, it is necessary to refer to the facts relatin...
Ramkrishna S/O Tukaram Patil and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties heard finally. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 5th October, 2011 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Grampanchayat Appeal No. 66 of 2011. 3. The background facts for filing this writ petition, as disclosed in the writ petition, are as under. It is the case of the petitioners that, there are total number of 7 members in the Village Panchayat, Varkhedi, Taluka Erondol, District Jalgaon. On 30th March, 2011 the petitioners herein, who are the members of village panchayat Varkhedi moved the Tahsildar, Erondol for bringing ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the respondent No.4 who is Sarpanch of the village by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 35(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (for short, “said Act”). On 30th March, 2011 respondent No.3 Tahsildar, Erondol issued notices to the petitioners herein, as well...
Vasant Jagannath Malkar-teli and Others Vs. Parvati Ananda Phatak and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
Oral Order: 1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The order impugned is one dated 9/12/2010 passed by the learned District Judge-3, Sangli by which order the Application (Exhibit 27) filed by the Petitioners herein, who are the original Appellants in Regular Civil Appeal No.524 of 1996 for bringing the heirs of the Respondent in the Appeal came to be rejected. 3 The issue in the above Petition is as regards bringing the heirs of the original Respondent on record. The suit in question has been filed for injunction and alternatively for possession of the suit property. The suit was filed on 11/6/1990 and was dismissed, after a trial on 20/9/1996. Thereafter the father of the Petitioners had filed the Appeal in question being Regular Civil Appeal No.524 of 1996 against the said dismissal of the suit. It is during pendency of the said Appeal that the original Respondent in the Appeal i.e. the Defendant in the suit died on 28/2/2000. The instant Appl...
Ashapura Aluminum Limited Vs. Jayesh Nagindas Doshi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
P.C. By this Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff seeks judgment be entered for the Plaintiff in this suit against the Defendant for a sum of Rs. 81,33,260.90. The suit is based on the dishonoured cheque, guarantee, written correspondence between the parties and on the basis of the written contract. 2. The 1st Plaintiff is one of the group of companies of the Plaintiff No. 2. The 1st Defendant was appointed as a ‘Group-Chief Financial Officer’ of the Plaintiff No.2 by its appointment letter dated 16th June, 2008 and was authorised and required to work for any of the associates or group of companies or the holding company of the Plaintiff and was conferred with the full/wide powers to carry out any and all financial decisions in respect of day-to-day affairs and to take important financial decisions on behalf of the Plaintiff independently. 3. The 1st Defendant was also appointed as Executive Director of the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 introduced the...
Mrs. Rashmi Rajan Lambor Alias Saggubai B. Vs. Scrutiny Committee for ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment dated 16/06/2012 passed by the Scrutiny Committee for verification of Caste Certificate (Respondent no.1) and to direct the respondent no.1 to scrutinize/affirm the OBC Certificate issued by the Deputy Collector/ SDM, Quepem, dated 4/2/2010. 3. Previously, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 135 of 2012 before this Court against the same respondents, whereby she had prayed that the order dated 16/01/2012 passed by the respondent no. 1 be quashed and set aside and certificate issued by the Deputy Collector/SDM, Quepem, dated 6/1/2006 be ordered to be scrutinized by respondent no.1, in accordance with law. This court by order dated 22/02/2012 had allowed the said Writ Petition in the following terms: (A) Order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 16th January...
Florens Containers Inc. Vs. M/S.Ornate Multimodal Carriers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
P.C. By this Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff seeks judgment be entered for the Plaintiff in this suit against the Defendant for a sum of US $ 58,677.91. The suit is based on the written contract dated 30th December, 2002 and various invoices issued by the Plaintiff. 2. On 1st November, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a Lease Agreement (Equipment Agreement) with the Defendant and leased various containers for its business operation on the terms and conditions setout in the said Agreement. The lease period was from 1st November, 2002 to 31st October, 2003. The agreed rental payable by the Defendant was setout therein. Clause 10(a) and (b) of the Agreement reads as follows:- “(a) If a unit of Leased Equipment is lost or destroyed, Lessee shall send a written declaration of loss to Lessor as soon as the loss is known and Lessee shall pay the Replacement Value (“RV”) or Depreciated Replacement Value (“DRV”) for the unit as stated in the applicable Lease. I...
Vasant Jagannath Malkar-teli and Others Vs. Parvati Ananda Phatak and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
Oral Order: 1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The order impugned is one dated 9/12/2010 passed by the learned District Judge-3, Sangli by which order the Application (Exhibit 27) filed by the Petitioners herein, who are the original Appellants in Regular Civil Appeal No.524 of 1996 for bringing the heirs of the Respondent in the Appeal came to be rejected. 3 The issue in the above Petition is as regards bringing the heirs of the original Respondent on record. The suit in question has been filed for injunction and alternatively for possession of the suit property. The suit was filed on 11/6/1990 and was dismissed, after a trial on 20/9/1996. Thereafter the father of the Petitioners had filed the Appeal in question being Regular Civil Appeal No.524 of 1996 against the said dismissal of the suit. It is during pendency of the said Appeal that the original Respondent in the Appeal i.e. the Defendant in the suit died on 28/2/2000. The instant Appl...
Ashapura Aluminum Limited Vs. Jayesh Nagindas Doshi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
P.C. By this Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff seeks judgment be entered for the Plaintiff in this suit against the Defendant for a sum of Rs. 81,33,260.90. The suit is based on the dishonoured cheque, guarantee, written correspondence between the parties and on the basis of the written contract. 2. The 1st Plaintiff is one of the group of companies of the Plaintiff No. 2. The 1st Defendant was appointed as a Group-Chief Financial Officer of the Plaintiff No.2 by its appointment letter dated 16th June, 2008 and was authorised and required to work for any of the associates or group of companies or the holding company of the Plaintiff and was conferred with the full/wide powers to carry out any and all financial decisions in respect of day-to-day affairs and to take important financial decisions on behalf of the Plaintiff independently. 3. The 1st Defendant was also appointed as Executive Director of the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 introduced the 2nd Defendant...
Mangesh Haribhau Ramekar and Another Vs. Shivdatta Sahebrao Kadu and O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally as a notice for final disposal was issued to the respondents by an order dated 02/12/2011 and the respondents are duly served with the notice. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial court on 13/07/2011 allowing the application filed by the respondents under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and staying the suit filed by the present petitioners. 2. The petitioners had filed Regular Civil Suit No.26/2010 against the respondents for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their agents or servants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the suit property. It is not in dispute that respondent no.2 Kanta Kadu had also filed Regular Civil Suit No.8/2010 against the petitioners, respondents and certain other persons for partition and separate possession of the suit property. It was the case of respondent No.2 Kanta Kadu that she had one ...
Prabhu Motiram Pamnani Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kham ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
Oral Judgment: By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon on 17/02/2006 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for stay of suit. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 14/08/2006 holding that the plaintiff's evidence be proceeded without cross-examination. The petitioner is the original tenant. A suit was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner for eviction and possession. Before institution of the special civil suit against the petitioner, permission was obtained by the respondent under the provisions of the C.P. And Berar, Letting of Houses And Rent Control Order, 1949 to issue quit notice to the petitioner. However, the order of the Rent Controller was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Collector. During the pendency of the rent control proceedings in appeal, an application was filed by the petitioner for stay of the suit filed by the respondent for eviction and possession of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »