Mumbai Court November 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.
Govind Arjundas Artani Vs. Bhaskar Kashiram Chaudhari
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2013
Oral Order: 1. Heard. By consent, admitted and taken up for final hearing forthwith. 2. The applicant is the accused in SCC No.350/2012 registered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yawal District Jalgaon. The case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent herein. After examining the respondent on oath, the learned Magistrate found that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the applicant with respect to the offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process accordingly. The applicant is aggrieved by the order issuing process and his prosecution with respect to the offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and has approached this Court invoking its inherent powers praying that the order issuing process as well as the proceedings of the said case be quashed. 3. I have gone through the application and the annxures thereto. 4. A perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent shows that the allegation that ...
City Life Developers Vs. Vencillous Fernandes and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2013
R.C. Chavan, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12/12/2011 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Forum on consumer complaint no.141/2008, whereby the forum directed the appellant to deliver possession of flat bearing no.B-305 in the building project of the appellant on complainant /respondent paying a sum of Rs.7,94,563/-. 2. This appeal was summarily rejected by an order of this Commission dated 19/07/2012. This order was questioned before the National Commission and the National Commission by its order dated 03/05/2013 set aside the order passed by this Commission permitting appellant to file an application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, appellant filed an application for condonation of delay bearing no.MA/13/55 which was allowed by an order dated 05/08/2013. This is how the appeal has come up for hearing. The facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- 3. The complainant booked a flat with the appellant for the price of Rs.11,...
Phoenix Tower Co-operative Housing Society Limited and Others Vs. Phoe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2013
Oral Judgment: By this chamber summons, the applicants seek impleadment as party defendants to the suit and also to pending Notice of Motion No. 3446 of 2006, Notice of Motion No. 3376 of 2006 and Notice of Motion No. 1004 of 2011. 2. Defendant No. 2 is one of the partners of defendant No. 1. Defendant no. 2 was original owner of the immovable property admeasuring 15,812.95 sq. mtrs situate and being at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Defendant No. 2 who is partner of defendant no. 1 got the suit property into the partnership firm i.e. defendant no. 1. Defendant no.1 sold various flats in the building known as Phoenix Tower Cooperative Housing Society Limited A and B Wing. Plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 are the owners of two flats in Tower A. Plaintiff Nos. 5 and 6 are the owners of the two flats in Tower B. The Flat purchasers in the said two buildings formed Plaintiff No. 1 and 2 society. It is the case of the plaintiff that various agreements entered into between the flat ...
Ajay Avinash Solanki and Others Vs. Umesh Bhanjibhai Yadav and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The Appellants, original Defendants, have challenged order dated 26 August 2013, passed by the learned Judge of City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai thereby granted Chamber Summons in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) (for bringing the legal heirs as per schedule annexed to the supporting documents/Chamber Summons of original Defendant No.1), subject to cost of Rs.5000/-. The amount has been deposited and the same is received by the Appellants. 3 The Order 22 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Code Procedure (CPC) contemplates the obligation of the Advocate appearing for Defendants to intimate the death of a party. Though required, not provided the same for unknown reason and/or for a long period. In supporting affidavit there were various reasons including non-cooperation and/or non intimation from the other side to provide the date and details of the deceased is made out. 4 The...
PravIn Pandurang Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule made returnable forrthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The Appellant-original Plaintiffs have filed three different Appeals against Order passed below Exhibit-21 dated 8.3.2013 in similar respective suits for the same cause of action, between the parties as thereby returned the respective plaints for presentation before the proper forum by invoking Order 7 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 3 Pursuant to the orders passed by the High Court in the Appeals, the learned Judge had framed a preliminary issue i.e. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? 4 The suits filed by the Appellant-Plaintiff were for a recovery of payment of work done, declaration and injunction. An application was also filed for an interim protection/injunction and also for a leave under Section 80 of CPC in the respective suits. The prayers were also granted in all suits and thereby the statutory period of n...
Mushtaq A. Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The Appellant-original Plaintiff by this Appeal from Order challenged the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the learned Judge of City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, whereby not granted any ad-interim relief pending the motion as well as the suit. 3 By invoking Section 3Z-1(4) of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short the Act), the Respondent-competent authority issued notice by treating the structure in question to be an unauthorised. Twenty four hours notice was given and called for explanation that the structure is in existence prior to 1.1.1995 or not. The Appellant replied on 17.10.2013. The reference is also made to the submission/earlier documents to justify the existence of the structure prior to 1.1.1995. 4 The Respondent-Authority/officer on 24.10.2013 without assigning any reason to the reply filed and/or withou...
Mrs. Mandakini Sudhakar Kesundekar Vs. Jagjeevanram Hospital and Other ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2013
R. C. Chavan, President: [1] The Complainant in this complaint seeks compensation quantified at Rs.43,50,000/- from the Opponents on account of the loss suffered by the Complainant due to her negligent treatment of knee replacement by the Opponent No.2 Dr. Jain, at the Opponent No.1 Hospital run by the Opponents Nos.3 and 4. [2] The Complainant was a railways employee who retired on 02/04/1986 from the service. After her retirement she enrolled herself for the treatment at the railways hospital under the Retired Employees Liberalized Health Scheme by payment of one months salary viz. Rs.440/- on 22/11/1992. She was accordingly issued a card entitling her to the treatment at railways hospital. In the month of June-2006, she suffered some pain in her knees and, therefore, visited the Opponent No.1 Hospital for treatment and was examined by the Opponent No.2 Doctor. The Complainant was admitted to the hospital for replacement of her knee joint on 25/07/2006. She was informed that after s...
Mrs. Hermione Mary Salazar Vs. Anthony H. Silva
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2013
Mrs. Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member: Mrs.Hermione Mary Salazar has filed present complaint for claiming possession of ownership flat of her choice of aggregate area of 1700 sq.ft. from the opponent. She has alleged that there is deficiency in service against the opponent. 2. Facts giving rise to present complaint in short are as under :- The complainant, her brother-Mr.Valerian Jude Fernandes, sister-Mrs.Gemma Bernadette DPenha, brother-Mr.Gringnion Lawrence Fernandes and Rev.Fr.Anadete Andrew Fernandes were absolute owners of property i.e. agricultural land bearing Survey No.45, Hissa No.16, CTS No.507, Survey No.46, Hissa No.1, CTS No.508, Survey No.56 Hissa No.1-Part, CTS No.510, Survey No.46, Hissa No.1-Part, CTS No.512, Survey No.46, Hissa No.1-Part, CTS No.513 and Surveyr No.46 Hissa No.1-Part, CTS No.514 admeasuring in aggregate 4972.9 sq.mtrs. and the structure standing thereon, situated at Village Kondivita, Tal. Andheri (East), Dist. Mumbai Suburban. The complaina...
Pramodkumar Vs. Liladhar and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-18-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. This appeal challenges judgment and order dated 12.8.2010, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gondia, in Claim Petition No.6 of 2003, whereby the Tribunal awarded sum of Rs.1,72,000/- inclusive of no fault liability payable jointly and severally by owner, driver and insurer of the offending motor vehicle. The owner of the offending vehicle was specifically and exclusively directed to pay the interest on the awarded amount at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition i.e. w.e.f. 18.12.1995 till realization of the amount. 3. The liability to pay the interest on the awarded amount imposed by the Tribunal is disputed by the appellant on the ground that the lawyer engaged by the appellant did not take care to prosecute the petition properly and hence claim petition was decided ex parte on 16.11.2005. It is the case of the appellant that he came to know of the ex parte a...
Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. Vs. Etisalat Db Telecom Pvt. Ltd and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2013
1. The above Company Petition is filed by the Petitioner Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. for winding up of Respondent No.1 Etisalat DB Telecom Pvt. Ltd. According to the Petitioner, it is just and equitable to wind up the Respondent No.1 Company inter alia on the following grounds: (i) Loss of substratum of the Respondent No.1 Company on account of the quashing of the 2G licenses by the Honble Supreme Court; (ii) Dysfunctional Board of Directors owing to the withdrawal of Directors nominated by Respondent No.2 Majestic Infracon Pvt. Ltd.; (iii) The Respondent No.1 Company is insolvent as its liabilities far exceed its assets and it cannot pay its dues as and when they arise. The Company Petition is taken up for admission. 2. Briefly set out here-in-below, are the facts which have led to the filing of the above Company Petition and the orders passed by this Court thereon after the filing of the Petition and pending admission of the same: 2.1 The Petitioner Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. (EML) is a C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »