Mumbai Court October 2013 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.
Arjun Ratansing Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of both sides. 2. In nutshell, the case of petitioner is that, he had taken contract of collection of gum from Chalishgaon Forest area for the period 26.11.2008 to 30.6.2009. He had got a pass issued to transport the gum from Chalisgaon to village Pal in Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon and transported the gum. The forest officials at Pal seized the gum at Pal and sealed the same in two rooms of the house of petitioner. Petitioner claims, this act of the forest officials is illegal. 3. The petitioner has supported his claim referring to various documents filed on record. Respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply and opposed the claims made by the petitioner. The learned counsel for petitioner, on the basis of the contentions raised and documents, has submitted as follows:- (a) The petitioner was the highest bidder in auction for collection of gum from 26.11.2008 to 30.6.2009 from Chalisgaon fo...
Shyamabai and Others Vs. Madan Mohan Mandir Sanstha
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-22-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Khamgaon in Regular Civil Appeal No.75 of 1985, decided on 6.12.1996 dismissing the appeal of the appellants and confirming the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.104 of 1984 by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon on 29.7.1985 decreeing the suit of the respondent for ejectment, possession and mesne profits. The appellants are the legal heirs of the original defendant and respondent is the original plaintiff. The respondent had filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.101 of 1984 for ejectment, possession and mesne profits. The suit filed by the respondent Madan Mohan Mandir Sanstha, a registered Public Trust was through one of its trustees, Gokuldas Kalyanji Shelarka. It was the case of the respondent that original defendant (hereinafter referred to as appellants for the sake of convenience) was inducted in the suit house, as described in pl...
Vardhman Developers Ltd. Vs. Borla Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2013
P.C. By this motion, the applicants (some of the original defendants) seek rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Plaintiffs have filed a suit inter alia praying for declaration that the development agreement dated 21st October, 2007 executed by and between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 is binding on all the defendants, their servants, agents and any persons claiming through them including all the members of the defendant no.1 society. Plaintiffs have also prayed for order and decree against defendant nos. 2 to 72 to execute their consent for redevelopment in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of the development agreement. 2. This motion has been filed by the applicants on the ground that though in the plaint and in particular paragraph 17, it is averred by the plaintiffs that in view of the urgency in the matter, notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Said Act) has...
Krishnat Jagannath Bhosale and Others Vs. Prakash Sadashiv Chavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Appellants-original Defendants being aggrieved by order dated 13 July 2010, passed by the learned Extra Jt. Ad-hoc District Judge, Satara thereby Regular Civil Appeal is partly allowed filed by the Plaintiff- Respondent. By the impugned order, judgment and decree passed by the Lower Court is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Phaltan with direction to give opportunity to both parties for leading oral and documentary evidence in the light of observations made in the order. 2 Once the learned Trial Judge, after considering all the documents/material placed on record and by giving an opportunity to the parties and by proper reasons after dealing with respective issues, dismissed the suit, there is no ground to remand the matter by reopening the trial itself, as no exceptional case is made out to remand the matter in such fashion are the contentions of the Appellants. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants has read ...
Vandana Bhimrao Jadhav and Others Vs. Sagar Bhimrao Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2013
By this petition, petitioners seek revocation of the heirship certificate granted by this court by an order dated 12th March, 2010 to the respondent in Petition No. 91 of 2009 under section 2 of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 in respect of the deceased Mr.Bhimrao Anand Jadhav. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2. Respondent to this petition who is admittedly son of the said deceased Mr.Bhimrao Anand Jadhav had filed the said Misc. Petition No. 91 of 2009 for issuance of legal heirship certificate in this court. It was stated in the said petition that the said deceased left behind the petitioner the only heir and legal representative of the said deceased. Considering the death certificate and other documents annexed to the petition, and considering the fact that inspite of proclamation issued, no objections were raised by any person, this court issued heirship certificate in favour of the petitioner therein. On perusal of the record...
Smt. Suryakanta Ishwar Lohkare and Others Vs. Smt. Annapurna Nilkanth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-22-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2] This petition challenges the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the learned 26th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, rejecting the application Exh. 42 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 242/2007. The application was for amendment of written statement filed by the defendant nos. 1 to 5. The written statement was filed by them on 27.07.2007. The issues were framed on 20.01.2012. The affidavit in lieu of examination in chief was filed on 03.05.2012 and the further examination in chief of the plaintiff was recorded on 10.07.2012. The matter was fixed for the cross examination of the plaintiff. It is at this stage the application was filed for amendment of written statement on 06.09.2012. 3] The trial court recorded the finding that the application was filed after the commencement of trial and the perusal of the application reveals that no where ther...
M/S Resources International and Others Vs. Mrs. Ana Bertha Do Rego E F ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-22-2013
Rule in all the petitions. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the identical orders dated 16/11/2012 passed by the Principal District Judge, South Goa, Margao, by which order, the applications filed by the respondents for being permitted to cross-examine the person, who had sworn the affidavit in the applications filed under Section 149/151 of the C.P.C. i.e. one Dipak Rajani, came to be allowed and the said person i.e. Shri Dipak Rajani was directed to submit himself to cross-examination. 2. The facts necessary to be cited for the adjudication of the above petitions can be stated thus : The petitioners herein and the respondents were involved in Arbitration Proceedings, which culminated in the declaration of the Award dated 29/03/2008. The petitioners invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Arb...
Sumitra Shashikant Khokhani and Others Vs. the Municipal Corporation o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 This Appeal from Order as the learned Judge by impugned order dated 24 September 2013 dismissed Notice of Motion filed by the Appellants along with Suit whereby the challenge is to the notice issued under Section 354 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (MMC Act) for want of specific service to the occupier-Plaintiffs. A prayer is also made for a direction to reconstruct room No.D-4, area admeasuring 240 sq.ft., situated at CTS No.15 and 16, Amrut Bhuvan, Khokhane Lane, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai. 2 The other tenants/occupants of the premises, the building being dilapidated condition have already surrendered the tenancy to the landlord and vacated the premises. The Appellants-occupants who by this Suit and motion want to obstruct/withheld the project/development of other area covering 1455 sq. meters . The agreement of development, though not in dispute, cannot be the subject matter of this suit basically when challenge is only to the notice issued by the Municipal Corporati...
Smt. Manisha Bhimraj Patil and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra Thr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2013
Sunil P. Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Banjara Magasvargiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Talegaon Tanda, Taluka Chalisgaon, Dist Jalgaon, under its aegis, was running primary ashram school by the name Prabodhankar Thakare Prathmik Ashram Shala, Talegaon Tanda, TqChasligaon DistJalgaon. Petitioners, possessed of requisite qualifications, were appointed in their respective posts in said Ashram School, during the period from 1999 to 2004. Appointments of petitioners, in due course, were approved during 2004-2006. Their appointments are made permanent with effect from dates referred to in chart submitted by the petitioners at Exhibit-A. 3. Around 2009, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, on his visit, found certain irregularities and deficiencies in conducting the school and a report accordingly was submitted by him to the Director of VJNT, OBC, Social Welfare of Special Backward Class, Pune (Respondent No.2 ...
Rajiv Gandhi Sahakari and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, in R.T.C. No. 299/2006 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar. The said case is in respect of offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 409 of IPC, Section 467 of IPC, Section 471 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. It arises on a complaint made by the respondent no.2 herein. The respondent no.2, shall, hereinafter, be referred to as the complainant, for the sake of clarity and convenience. 3. After examining the complainant on oath, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar formed an opinion that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners and also one more Arun Bhalsing who was named as the accused no.4 in the complaint, with respect to offences punishable under Section 467 of IPC and Section 471 of IPC, read with Section 34 of IPC. The petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »