Mumbai Court February 2013 Judgments
Shree Hanuman Mandir, Alibag, Public Trust Through Its Trustees and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Heard Mr. Gavnekar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Ms Godse, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 at length. 2. By this Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.'), the original defendant Nos.1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3 , 1/5, 1/7, 1/8 and 1/11 have challenged the judgment and order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Alibaug below exhibit-40 in Special Civil Suit No.54 of 2011. By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected the application made by the applicants under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The relevant and material facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present application, briefly stated, are as under: 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted Short Cause Suit No.54 of 2011 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Alibaug and the applicants were impleaded as defendant Nos.1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, 1/8 and 1/11 (for short 'defendants'). Respondent Nos.7 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Yakub Sukhrulla Vs. MobIn Ahmed Khan and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Heard. Rule. The Respondents waive service. By consent, heard finally. This Civil Revision Application challenges the order passed by the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai in Appeal No.661/2008 in RAE Suit No.1039/2005 delivered on 16.04.2012. 2. By this judgment and decree, the lower Appellate Court has reversed the Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 29.08.2008 in RAE Suit No.1039/2005. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit with costs. 3. The Applicant before me is the original Defendant. It is the case of the Applicant that earlier suit was filed in the Trial Court by the Respondents/ Plaintiffs under the category of L.E. and C. Suit No.142/173 of 1999. The Respondents in that suit pleaded that the status of the Applicant is that of the licencee. The suit premises were described as C.I. Shed standing on a plot of land situate at Scheme No.57, Junction of Sewri Cross Road, Wadala, Mumbai-400031. The land under this shed belongs to the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Ramu Karale Vs. Smt. Shantabai Anna Patil, Since Deceased Thro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Heard the submissions of both the sides. 2 This second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 03rd March, 2011 passed by the District Judge-1 Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No. 387 of 1999 as also the Judgment and Order dated 30th March, 1992 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tasgaon at Tasgaon in Regular Civil Suit No. 321 of 1977; whereby the Regular Suit filed by Anna Mahadgonda Patil (Original Plaintiff) against the legal heirs of Ramu Krishna Karale was decreed and legal heirs of said Ramu Krishna Karale were directed to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit house property to the Plaintiff. 3 It appears that one Krishna Bhosale died in the year 1940, leaving behind Rajjubai, his widow and two daughters Akkubai and Tanubai. It is to be noted that Tanubai died on 03.08.1977. Smt. Rajjubai, the widow of Krishna had executed the registered gift deed in the year 1946 in favour of her daughter Akkubai, excluding her other dau...
Tag this Judgment!Kagalwala Building Resident Welfare Association (Regd.), (Through Pres ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is, with the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, respectively. Respondent No.4 Aaraaish Developers are a partnership firm. 3. It would be convenient to preface this judgment with a summary of it. The petitioners members are residents of a building which respondent No.4 is redeveloping under Development Control Regulation 33(7). Respondent No.4 is to provide the residents, permanent alternate accommodation in the new building and to pay them compensation for temporary accommodation till they are put in possession of their respective premises in the new building. In this regard, notarized agreements were admittedly executed by the parties in or about July, 2008, whereunder the residents were to be put in possession within 24 months and till then, the residents were to be paid com...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh S/O Shama Kumbhar and Another Vs. Sudhakar S/O Budha Kumbhar an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Mr. Sangeet, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the purpose of the present Writ Petitions, respondent Nos. 1 to 27 in W.P. No. 270 of 2013 and Respondent Nos. 1 to 23 in W.P. No. 422 of 2013 are not necessary parties. 2. Mr. Nagori, the learned counsel appears for contesting respondent No. 28 in W.P. No. 270 of 2013 and respondent No. 24 in W.P. No. 422 of 2013. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. The present petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who had filed Suit for simplicitor injunction. The present respondent Nos. 28 and 24 respectively have filed application purportedly under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading them as parties. The said application is allowed. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petitions are filed. 5. Mr. Sangeet, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs are the...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Vs. Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon thereby issuing recovery certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, "Act of 1960) in favour of respondent No.2. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to pages 20 and 31 of the compilation of the writ petition and submitted that, it is written that 'notice not claimed'. It is submitted that, the procedure which is prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the provisions under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is submitted that, if notice is not claimed, further stages are provided to serve the notice. No any attempt is made by the respondent authority to ask respondent No.2 to take steps or a...
Tag this Judgment!Nidhi Verma Vs. Prabhudas Lilladher Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Admit. With the consent of learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. Counsel for the Respondent waives service. 2. This appeal arises from an order of a learned single Judge on a Petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the Respondent. The arbitral proceedings took place before an arbitral tribunal constituted by the National Stock Exchange. The Respondent is a Member of the National Stock Exchange who had entered into transactions on behalf of the Appellant. The claim of the Respondent was allowed by the arbitral tribunal in an Award dated 14 October 2009 in the sum of Rs.3,25,597/- on which interest was allowed at 12% per annum from 26 September 2008. There was a Counter Claim of the Appellant which was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The dismissal of the Counter Claim was not challenged by the Appellant. However, the Respon...
Tag this Judgment!Amish Jayant Dharod Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of learned additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai directing the petitioner to submit his verification upon his complaint being filed before the learned Magistrate. The Petitioner has sought an order U/s.156(3) of the CrPC upon his complaint. This is upon the premise that the learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the complaint filed by the Petitioner before any report is submitted by police officer upon his complaint for taking action against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the complaint who are the police officers. The Petitioner, therefore, claims that though the learned Magistrate can issue an order U/s.156(3) of CrPC, he cannot issue an order for verification of the complaint U/s.200 of the CrPC. It is argued that the order U/s.156(3) is pre cognizance stage and the order U/s.200 is upon taking cognizance. 2. The Respondents claim that the Petitioner's case has been previously seen and does not require fresh conside...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ujjwal Shikshan Sanstha and Another Vs. the Municipal Corpn. of G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Petitioner No.1 is a public trust which runs petitioner No. 2 M/s. Anudatta Vidyalaya Hindu Primary School. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Education Officer, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and the Administrative Officer of the Administrative Department of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai respectively. Respondent No.4 is the S-tate of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Education Department. 2. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit petitioner No.2 to grant-in-aid with effect from the first date of the application. The petitioners also seek a declaration that the policy of respondent No.4 State of Maharashtra dated 24th November, 2011, communicated on 13th January, 2004, to respondent No.1 is unconstitutional. 3. On 25th July, 2007, the petitioners applied for grant-in-aid in respect of petitioner No.2. The request was repeated several times, upto 10th August, 2011. Respondent No.1, by a letter dated 17th Sep...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Maruti Rawoot and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
P.C.:- Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This P.I.L., essentially, takes exception to the order passed by respondent No. 5 dated 28th March, 2011, whereunder, the decision of earmarking land, which had vested in gram panchayat, for construction of memorial in the name of Dr. Nanasaheb Dharmadhikari has been assailed. 3. The challenge is, primarily, on the basis of the exposition in Jagpal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 2011 S.C. 1123. The Apex Court, in the said decision, has held that the Government cannot permit allotment of gramsabha land to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment of some money. Further, the Government orders of different State Governments in this behalf have been declared to be illegal and to be ignored in future. The principle stated is that the land vested in gramsabha, which is used as public utility land should not be used for any other purpose, and must be treated as inalienable. 4. There can be no difficulty in following the sta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »