Mumbai Court July 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.
Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned counsel. 2. The petition has been filed in the public interest by a citizen who is a resident of Navi Mumbai. The Petitioner has stated that he has been actively involved in social causes and is also a Vice President in a multi-national company. The grievance of the Petitioner relates to encroachments made on lands belonging to City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), the Fourth Respondent, and Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), the Third Respondent. The Fifth Respondent is a Minister in the State Government holding the portfolio of Excise and Non-conventional Energy. The Sixth Respondent is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The Seventh Respondent is a nephew of the Fifth Respondent and a trustee of...
M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Kishore L. To ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
The above appeal and cross-objection, both, are directed against the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 30/07/2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama (trial Court) in Special Civil Suit no. 45/94/A. 2. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said Special Civil Suit of 45/94/A. 3. The plaintiff had filed the said suit for declaration that the defendant no. 1 is liable to indemnify the plaintiff and consequently to pay Rs.13,00,000/- towards the bill no. 7/B/MS/89 dated 26/12/1989 and further to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 26,30,174.88 along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. 4. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows: The plaintiff, who is the sole proprietor of M/s Kilito Ore Carriers, had obtained a barge by name 'M.V. Vinayak' under lease from M/s. Tolani Shipping Limited, Bombay and the same was plied for transportation a...
Premkumar S/O. Surajmal Chandak Vs. Kishor S/O. Kanhayyalal Toshniwal
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
1. The petition is filed to challenge the order made on Exh. 40 of S.T.C. No. 285 of 2009 by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad, District Jalna in a private complaint filed by respondent for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The J.M.F.C. has allowed the respondent to file additional evidence by way of one more affidavit and to produce some documents when evidence by way of affidavit was already filed by complainant. Both the sides are heard. 2. It is the case of respondent/complainant that by way of hand, loan at the time of Navratra festival of 2008 he gave Rs. 7 lakh to the accused and this amount was to be returned by the accused within four months. It is contended by the complainant that when after the expiry of the period, he demanded the amount, the accused gave him two cheques of the aforesaid amount. One cheque was of Rs. 4 lakh and the second cheque was of Rs. 3 lakh. It is the case of complainant that both the cheques bounced and bank ga...
The Deputy Collector and S. D.O., Land Acquisition Officer and Another ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants and Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12/09/2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 61/2004. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the said L.A.C. No. 61/2004. The appellants are the legal representatives of original applicant. 4. Vide preliminary notification published under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act, for short), in the official gazette dated 2/8/2001, the Government proposed to acquire land for development of swimming pool and Multipurpose Sports Complex at Chaudi, Canacona. That included an area of 113 square metres from survey no. 62/1 (part) of village Chaudi. By award dated 21/11/2003, the Land Acquisition Officer (...
Yoshita R. Rivankar and Her Husband and Others Vs. Mrs. Sunita Haldank ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
By this Second Appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and decree dated 8th December, 2003 passed by Additional District Judge, FTC, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No. 158/2001 by which the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 27th September, 2001 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No. 14/1978/C, has been dismissed. 2. The appellant nos. 1 to 10 are legal representatives of original plaintiff Vaicunta Anant Bandodkar and appellant no.11 was plaintiff no. 2 in the above suit. The respondents are legal representatives of original defendants i.e. Shankar Anant Bandodkar, and his wife Sogunabai Shankar Bandodkar. The plaintiff no.1 was brother of defendant no.1. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. The Plaintiffs filed the above suit seeking recovery of possession of suit premises situated at Aquem-Alto claiming title to it by deed...
Vilas Marutrao Tanpure and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
1. Both the proceedings are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India and section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The first proceeding is filed for the relief of quashing of the proceeding of Regular Criminal Case No. 305 of 2002, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parbhani, District Parbhani. The second proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of the proceeding of Regular Criminal Case No. 23 of 2011, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Badnapur, District Jalna. The same legal points are involved in both the proceedings and the same counsel is representating the petitioners from both the proceedings and so, they are being decided together. Both the sides are heard. 2. Accused No. 5 M/s. Milkcraft Diary Private Ltd., Shelgaon (Davalvadi), District Jalna from R.C.C. No. 23 of 2011 is in the business of selling milk. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are its Directors and at the relevant time, accused No. 1 was working as Production Execut...
Sitaram Damodar Sinai Desai Vs. Rajendra Vassudev Deshprabhu, R/O Pern ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Common Judgment shall dispose of both the above appeals since they pertain to the acquisition of the portions of the same property, vide the same notification. 3. The land was acquired for construction of bus stand at Pernem. This acquisition included an area of 3200 square metres of land from survey no. 3/2 of village Pernem and an area of 4570 square metres of land from survey no. 2/1 of the same village. By award dated 30/12/1992 passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) compensation of Rs. 45,295/- was awarded for the acquired land from survey no. 3/2 whereas compensation of Rs. 1,44,059/- was awarded for acquired land from survey no. 2/1. Since there was dispute regarding apportionment of the compensation, separate references under Section 30 of the L. A. Act, for survey nos. 3/2 and 2/1 were made by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Case No. 160 of 1996 pertained ...
Kanwarjitsingh R. Chadha Vs. Sahebrao Gajanan Salve and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, Rule called out and heard finally at the admission stage. 2. This petition challenges the order dated 12.9.2012 passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik. The petitioner is the original defendant No.1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition, possession and also challenged the sale deed executed in favour of Defendant No.1 i.e., the petitioner. In the course of evidence, the defendant has moved application for taking secondary evidence i.e., attested copy of the will on record. The trial Court has allowed the secondary evidence, however, subject to execution of the said will being proved as per section 68 of the Evidence Act. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court ought to have exhibited the will as it is admitted by the plaintiff in the averments. It is submitted in para 3 of the plaint that the plaintiff has averred that the deceased ...
Kewal Kishan Aggarwal and Others Vs. the Board of Trustees of the Port ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
1. 7 leases in favour of the Plaintiffs for 7 contiguous lands executed on 7 different dates have all expired on 10th December, 1978. The Plaintiffs desire the leases to be renewed for a further period of 99 years as envisaged in the renewal clauses. The Defendants contend that the suit is barred by the law of limitation as also on principles of Res-judicata aside from a denial of the requirement of renewal of the leases on merits. ISSUES 1. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation. 2. Whether the suit is barred by principles of res judicata or principle analogous to res judicata. 3. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to renewal of the 7 leases in favour of the Plaintiff. 4. Whether the Defendant No.1 accepted and acquiesced in the renewal of the leases in favour of the Plaintiffs. 5. What relief, if any, are the Plaintiffs entitled to? 2. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 would be require to be tried as preliminary issues under the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC. These issues a...
Prakash P. Bambardekar Vs. Avinash Vishvanath Ajgaonkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
By this petition filed under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, petitioner seeks revocation of Letter of Administration issued by this Court to the respondent on 15th June, 2009 in Testamentary Petition No. 210 of 2009 and also seeks an order and direction against the respondent to handover possession of flat No. A/501 to the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. Respondent is son of the deceased Mr.Sadashiv Anant Ajgaonkar (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased) and Mrs.Sudha Sadashiv Ajgaonkar. Mrs.Sudha Sadashiv Ajgaonkar died on 23rd February, 2002. Mr.Sadashiv Anant Ajgaonkar died on 16th August, 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that since 1960, the respondent has been staying in U.S.A. and occasionally used to visit the said deceased Mr.Sadashiv and his wife i.e. only once in one or two years. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was introduced to the said deceased in or abou...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »