Mumbai Court February 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.
Bhagirathibai W/O Chandrabhan Nimbarte and Another Vs. Tanabai W/O Ram ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-18-2013
1. The appellants in Second Appeal No.291 of 1995 are the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Regular Civil Suit No.407 of 1986 filed by the respondent Tanabai, claiming a declaration that she is the owner of half portion of the suit property, being the daughter of one Vithoba Nimbarte, who was the owner. The Trial Court, by its judgment and order dated 31-12-2001, has partly decreed the said suit and the declaration is granted that the plaintiff is the owner of 1/3rd share in the suit property. Accordingly, a decree for partition of the suit property has been passed and an enquiry into mesne profit has been ordered. 2. In Regular Civil Appeal No.26 of 1992, the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhandara, has modified the decree on 23-12-1994 by granting a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property, and accordingly a decree for partition and separate possession was maintained along with enquiry into mesne profit under Order XX, Rule 12 of the Civi...
Ravji Khimji Chheda and Others Vs. Kesarben Laxmichand Dedhia and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
By this Chamber Summons filed by the applicants under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the applicants seek setting aside of abatement of arbitration petition dismissed by orders dated 13th September, 2005 and 26th September, 2005 and also seek condonation of delay of 676 days in taking out Chamber Summons for bringing the heirs and legal representatives of deceased petitioner no.2, 1707 days delay in taking out Chamber Summons for bringing the heirs and legal representatives of deceased petitioner no.3 and 3200 days delay in taking out Chamber Summons for bringing the heirs and legal representatives of deceased petitioner no.1 and 284 days delay in taking out Chamber Summons for bringing the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent no.2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this Chamber Summons are as under:- 2. Original petitioner nos. 1 to 4 viz. Mr.Ravji Khimji Chheda, Mr.Visanji Khimji Chheda, Mr.Shamji Khimji Chheda and Mr.Padam...
Sanjay Bapurao Gaikwad and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the Respondents. Rule. The Government Pleader waives service for the Respondents. Considering the narrow controversy involved, this Petition is taken up forthwith for final disposal. 2. The Petitioners are claiming to be the owners of the lands which are more particularly described in Paragraph 3(A) of the Petition. The contention raised in this Petition is that the original owners filed the Returns under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1976"). In the Petition, a reference is made to the entries effected in the revenue record which show that a part of the property held by the Petitioners was declared as excess land under the provisions of the said Act of 1976. In the revenue records, an entry was made that out of the land held by the Petitioners, an area of 39041 sq. meters was declared as excess land und...
Vasantkumar Maganlal Patel Vs. Ketankumar M. Sharma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
Oral Order: 1. The petitioner has applied for letters of administration with the Will of the deceased annexed thereto. The deceased died on 1st January, 2010. The petitioner had filed an earlier petition of letters of administration with the same will annexed thereto being Petition No.466 of 2010. That petition has been dismissed for non-removal of office objections. The petitioner claims to adjust the fee paid in the former petition in this petition. 2. A petition is much like a suit. The CPC applies much to a suit to a petition or an application. Once the petition is dismissed the Court fee is liable to be forfeited. Court fee payable in a suit would be forfeited when the suit is dismissed. The rule of forfeiture in respect of a petition for probate, therefore, cannot be any different. 3. The petitioner relies upon the specific provision under section 23 of the Bombay Court fee act, 1959 for considering the same fee chargeable in this petition as in the earlier petition. Section 23 r...
Smt. Archana Ajay Walvekar Vs. President and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Office noting shows that the third Respondent has been served with the notice. The learned AGP represents the fourth Respondent. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that she was appointed by the first Respondent to the post of Junior Clerk under the appointment order dated 3rd October 2010 from 1st October 2010 to 30th September 2013. The grievance in the Petition is as regards the communication dated 24th January 2011 issued by the third Respondent (Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Sangli) informing the second Respondent-the Principal of the concerned School that approval cannot be granted to the appointment of the Petitioner as there was a ban on employment imposed by the State Government when the Petitioner was appointed. The Petitioner has referred to the communication dated 15th September 2011 addressed by the third Responde...
Shafi VazruddIn Qureshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. Rule. Heard by consent. Perused affidavits on record. 2. The Petitioner was prosecuted pursuant to the FIR no. 355 of 1990 reported at Wanwadi police station in a sessions trial no 44 of 1991 tried by the Sessions Court Pune, and on 30-06-1994 convicted of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. And sentenced inter alia to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The Petitioner is undergoing sentence in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune. 3. In August September 1996 , the Petitioner was released on furlough leave for a period of two weeks on 05-08-1996. His leave was extended by seven days. He surrendered late in Prison by 15 days and was punished by reducing 45 days (3 x 15) with ratio1:3 days from the remission earned by him. The reason for late surrender was that Mother of the Petitioner had a heart problem and in August 1996, she was hospitalized in Sassoon Hospital, Pune. In December 1996, the Petitioner was release...
Rama Xanu Naik Dessai Vs. Menino Salvador F. Coutinho, (Since Deceased ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 30/01/2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge III, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 68 of 1988. 2. Facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeal, in brief, are as follows: Land was acquired from survey no. 435/1 of Village Cuncolim, for construction of Police Station and staff quarters, for which compensation of Rs. 1,47,997/- was awarded. Since the ownership of the said acquired land was in dispute, the learned Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act which gave rise to the said Land Acquisition Case No. 68 of 1988. 3. There were three sets of claimants, before the learned Reference Court. The first was of parties no. 1, 2 and 3 (respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 of the appeal); the second was of party no. 6(appellant) and the third was of party no. 7(respondent no. 6 of the appeal). The party no. 4 did not file any claim before the Reference Court and also ...
Girdhari Ramchandra Bhagwani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- 1) Direct handing over of investigation of Crime No.385/2012 registered by Sitabuldi Police Station on 13/10/2012 for the offences punishable under section 448, 452 and 34 of Indian Penal Code to Crime Branch Nagpur or Crime Investigation Department, or any other independent unbiased authority, in the interest of justice. 2) Direct respondent no.2, Commissioner of Police to initiate departmental enquiry against the respondent no.4 so also other Police Officers who delayed with enquiry/investigation of complaint given by the petitioner, for dereliction of duty, in the interest of justice. 3. In so far as Prayer (1) is concerned, learned Adv. Mr. Vyas for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing the said relief, inasmuch as reply...
Rajendra Baburao Mahale Vs. Varsha Mahesh Dangarekar and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. Acquittal recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. on 7th August, 2002 for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is questioned by the complainant by preferring Criminal Appeal (as then prevalent). It was admitted on 26th November, 2008. Parties are referred as complainant and accused. 3. The complainant - Rajendra, out of friendship with Mahesh, has, allegedly, given Rs.40,000/- as a hand loan and in lieu thereof, on 15th May, 1996, a cheque of Rs.40,000/- dated 15th June, 1996 was issued to him by Mahesh. The cheque was presented to the banker on due date. Dishonour resulted in serving statutory notice to the accused. It was unclaimed; followed by complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against accused Varsha and Mahesh. Learned Judge, read the complaint as a whole, but did not issue process against Mahesh. Thus, the matter proceeded only against accused Varsha. In order to substantiate the claim, the complainant Rajend...
M/S. Mahindra Ugine Vs. Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, JM. 1. These two appeals preferred by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders dtd. 9-2-2011 passed by the ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000. Since facts are identical and common issue is involved, both these appeals are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case extracted from ITA No. 3212/Mum/2011 for A.Y. 1997-98 are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of tool, alloy special steel and processing charges of stampings unit. During the course of assessment proceeding the assessee was inter alia asked to submit the details in respect of leave encashment benefit of Rs. 17,98,331/-. In reply it was submitted as under:- "No provision has been made for labour demands in the relevant previous year, regarding provision for leave encashment benefit the company has made a provision of Rs. 17,98,331/- on the, basis of actuarial valuation. This was mad...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »