Mumbai Court August 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.
Kasturbai Himmat Patil Vs. Lilabai W/O Sada Patil, Since Deceased Thro ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
Instant second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2000 passed by the 03rd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon in R.C.A. No. 43/1995 confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.01.1995 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon in Spl. C. S. No. 49/1985 refusing the relief of specific performance of contract based on the agreement dated 06.05.1974 and registered agreement dated 10.02.1984. FACTS : 2. The appellant/Kasturbai Patil, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the original defendant No. 1 Lilabai Patil stating that, Lilabai had entered into a contract with her to sale the suit land on 06.05.1974 for Rs. 25,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,500/- was paid as earnest money and possession was also handed over to her. The agreement was executed on behalf of her minor children for legal necessity. Lilabai was to obtain necessary permissions for the execution of the sale deed. Time was not the essence of contract. After taki...
Charandas S/O Bhiwaji Ramteke Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. The appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 15th July, 2003, whereby the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 378/1997 awarded total compensation in the sum of Rs. 96,000/- only inclusive of no fault liability after deciding proportionate liability of Respondent no. 1 Insurer and Respondent no. 2 Owner jointly and severally to the extent at 25%, while liability of Respondents no. 4 to 6 was determined jointly and severally at 75% of the said amount. The Tribunal also awarded payment of interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum on the awarded sum from the date of the application till realization. The claim was made in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs) before the Tribunal. After hearing the learned Advocates representing the parties and after careful perusal of the evidence available on record at thread bare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for ...
Mrs. Ratna Chandrakant Vannam and Another Vs. Tukaram K. Jadhav and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
P.C. This is one more instance of the petitioner being proceeded against by the police officers posted at the concerned police station although the allegation made by the petitioners is that they were carrying out some work alleged to be unauthorized. The petitioners state that they are residing in a hut like structure at Sion Koliwada, Mumbai. The petitioners' structure requires some repairs as it was partially damaged due to rains. In September, 2012, the petitioners hired a contractor for carrying out the repair work. 2. During the course of the repair work, the adjoining structure/hut owner came at the site along with his elder son. The petitioners were told that they are carrying out the work which is not permissible and, therefore, illegal and unauthorized. The petitioners' contractor and his workers continued to carry out the work but the local police station, it is alleged, did not give them any protection. 3. Instead, a notice was served on the petitioners that a non-cognizabl...
Philips Electronics India Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to set aside the decision of respondent nos.2 and 3 accepting the technical bid of respondent no.4 and an order restraining them from awarding the contract and/or implementing the contract in furtherance of the e-tender. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent nos.2 and 3 to award the contract under the tender in its favour. Respondent no.2 is the Directorate of Medical Education and Research, respondent no.3, is the Director of the respondent no.2 and respondent no.4 is Siemens Ltd. 2. The respondent no.2 floated a tender for the procurement of MRI Machines 3-TESLA. The two bid system was followed. The first being a technical bid and the second being a commercial bid. Clause 10 of the TECHNICAL BID ( PART-I) is as under: 10. USERS LIST:- The tenderer should submit user list of Quoted Model as per Annexure -IV: ... Clause 1, 3 and 11 of the COMMERCIAL BID (PART -II) clause 3(i)(ii) reads as under:- 1. No price ...
Late Shri Laxmanraoji Motghare Charitable Trust and Another Vs. Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner no.1 a Public Trust and petitioner no.2 College run by it, challenge the order dated 25.10.2012, cancelling permanently the recognition granted to the petitioner no.2 College under the provisions of Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the 1998 Act for short), by taking recourse to its Section 38 and 2006 Rules framed thereunder. This Court issued notice on 11.02.2013. The respondent no.1 University, respondent no.2 Vice Chancellor and respondent no.3 Dean have filed their reply on 16.07.2013. Looking to the nature of controversy and with their consent, we have heard the Writ Petition finally, by issuing Rule, making it returnable forthwith. 2. Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner no.2 College got initial recognition in the year 2002-03 and it was continued till 2010-11, on year to year bas...
Atul Anant Pathak Vs. State Through Chandrakant L. Naik
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Oral Judgment : The petitioner in this petition has invited this trouble of being required to move this Court because he questioned before the Sessions Court an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sattari in Criminal Case No.9/S/2011 issuing process against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. 2. A sixteen and half years old girl was employed in a factory of which the petitioner was Factory Manager. It was alleged that the petitioner did not supply necessary safety equipments to the victim who was caught in a conveyor belt. She suffered injuries which led to her death. A report was made and after investigation, charge-sheet was sent to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Sattari, who issued process against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached Court of Sessions at Mapusa for having the order of issuance of process set aside. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judg...
Lilabai Vs. Maruti Raoji Choudhari and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1) Partly unsuccessful plaintiff has put to challenge the judgment and decree dated 30th June, 1983, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akole in Regular Civil Suit No.92/1979, who dismissed her suit in its entirety; and the Judgment and decree dated 30th September, 1989 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.257/1983, who did not decree her suit in full. FACTS: 2) Lilabai, the plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration and possession in respect of various suit lands, described in detail in Para 1 of the plaint, in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akole. It was her case, that all the defendants in the suit had absolutely no concern, whatsoever, with the suit property, which was originally held by her father Dagadu Chaudhari. Father of the plaintiff Dagadu died when the plaintiff was only 56 months old and due to his demise, plaintiff Lilabai, with her mother Sulabai, left to Nawalewadi, leaving all the properties. The plainti...
Mihir Ramesh Vora Vs. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
M.S. Sonak, J. 1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2] The petitioner, who has attained majority seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai (respondent no. 2) to issue a passport in his name as indicated in a deed of adoption dated 28.06.2001. 3] The brief facts and circumstances in which the petitioner was required to file the present petition are set out hereunder:- (A) The petitioner was born on 28.11.1991 to Suryakant Nisar and his wife Jigna Suryakant Nisar, hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner's biological parents'. (B) By a deed of adoption dated 28.06.2001, the petitioner, then 9 years old, was taken in adoption by one Ramesh Vora and his wife. The said Ramesh Vora is hereinafter referred to as the 'adoptive father of the petitioner'. Incidentally, the said Suryakant Nisar is the maternal uncle of the petitioner. (C) The petitioner has placed on record the Maharashtra Government Gazette publi...
Nandkishor S/O Damodhar Wadgaonkar and Another Vs. Gajanan S/O Uttamra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the parties. 2. It is the case of the revision applicants that: The present respondent has filed a suit for specific performance of contract bearing Spl.C.S. No.74/1997 which came to be dismissed in default on 12.01.2006. However, as the present applicants have filed counter claim in the said suit, the counter claim was proceeded though the suit was dismissed in default. The said counter claim of the present applicants was dismissed by the trial court. The applicants thereafter filed Spl.C.S. no.34/2007 in the trial court. Thereafter, the present respondent has filed an application for setting aside dismissal order alongwith an application for condonation of delay bearing M.A.R.J.I. No. 664/2007, which was dismissed in default by the trial court. It is further the case of the revision applicants that in the suit filed by the present applicants bearing Spl.C.S. No.34/2007, after filing of the written statement, the prese...
Smt. Manju W/O Baldev Narang and Another Vs. Prakash S/O Manohar Lokha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Oral Judgment:- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2] This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the judgment and decree, dated 14.2.2013 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2007, passed by the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar, thereby confirming the judgment and decree, dated 14.7.2005, passed by the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar, in Regular Civil Suit No. 555 of 2004. 3] It is the case of the applicants that they are the original defendant nos. 1 and 2 in Regular Civil Suit No. 555 of 2004, filed by the respondents herein. The applicants herein are the tenants of the suit premises and the respondent nos. 1 to 4 herein are the original plaintiffs, who filed the suit for recovery of possession of tenanted premises and for recovery of arrears of rent. 4] According to the plaintiffs, the suit shop admeasuring 10 feet North-South and 18 feet East-West constructed on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »