Mumbai Court September 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.
Ms. Aura Serafina Crispina De Souza and Another Vs. Vitorino Mendonca ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri J. Vaz, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 1. 2. The above Writ Petition, inter alia, seeks to quash and set aside by a writ of certoriari or any other writ or direction, the Order dated 05.08.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Mapusa, in Execution Application No. 3/05/B. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the Petitioners are that the Petitioner, who is the owner of a property bearing survey no. 311/3, situated at Anjuna Village, filed a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, against the Respondent no. 1 seeking eviction of the house bearing no. 513, situated in the said property. 4. Upon service of summons, the Respondent no. 1 filed the written statement and opposed the said suit. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge framed several issues one of them being as to whether the Respondent no...
Sau. Kalpana W/O Santosh Jadhav Vs. Hanma @ Seema W/O Govindrao Jadhav ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Hereinafter referred to as the Domestic Violence Act) against 8 persons, including the respondent nos. 1 to 6 herein. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 made an application before the learned Magistrate who is seized of the matter, praying that their names be deleted from the array of the respondents. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 06.06.2012, rejected the said application. While rejecting the application, the learned Magistrate made it clear that the observations made in the order were only tentative and were in the context of the prayer for deletion of names of the said respondents from the proceedings. The Magistrate made it clear that whether domestic violence had taken place, would be considered only after the trial. Against this order of the Magistrate, the respondents a...
Ganesh Rama Gaonkar (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Heard Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 5 to 7. 2. The relevant facts to decide the above petitions are that the petitioners' father namely late Govind Javlo Gaonkar was recorded as tenant in Form I and XIV in the records of rights in respect of agricultural property surveyed under survey no.297/13 of Loliem Village. The subject matter of the property in Writ Petition No. 792 of 2009 is the property surveyed under no.297/13 whereas the subject matter of the property in Writ Petition No. 793 of 2009 is the property surveyed under No. 297/14 of Village Loliem. The respondent no.1 filed an application to the learned Mamlatdar of Canacona praying inter-alia that the petitioners' father be declared as not a tenant of the suit paddy field and the Talathi of the Loliem Village be directed to ...
Communidade of Chorao, Represented by Its Special Attorney, Shri Polic ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Heard Mr. J. Godinho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocates appearing for the respective respondents in the petitions. 2. The petitions were ordered to be taken together as the points involved are common as submitted by the counsel appearing for both the parties. 3. The above Writ Petitions seek to quash the orders passed by the authorities below whereby the objections filed to the mutation in the record of rights by the petitioners came to be rejected. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has essentially raised an objection to the proceedings on the ground that the purchase certificate which has been obtained by the respondents is in the course of the proceedings before the Mamlatdar who was not appointed to perform such duties in terms of Section 2(15) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (herein after referred to as the said Tenancy Act of 1964). The learned counsel pointed out that as the fo...
Prahladsingh Ramkhilaansingh, Since Deceased by His Heir and Legal Rep ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
1. The question agitated in these appeals is as to whether the learned trial Judge erred in law to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code? My answer is in the affirmative for following reasons. 2. The case of the appellant (Original Plaintiffs) is that they are legal heirs of Prahladsingh Ramkhilavan Singh. Their father claimed as Tenant of the premises described as 'Stable with surrounding open land at Final Plot No. 113 and 114 at TPS V Scheme Vile Parle (East)'. He disclaimed Lessors right by refusing to pay rent for 12 years and claimed ownership by adverse possession. Second defendants in S.C Suit no 3856 of 1999 and S.C. Suit no. 3857 of 1999 were his servants residing in the stable permitted as gratuitous licensee. They were not in possession or occupation of any premises. They had filed suit against the plaintiffs in the court of small causes being suit no. 3164 of 1981 and 3165 of 1985. First Defendant decided to develop the property and had entere...
Siddharth Sambhaji Survase Vs. Air India Charters Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
1. This appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent. The appeal is preferred under Section 30(1) (c) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923(hereinafter referred to as 'Act'.) Heard submissions at the bar at length with reference to the compilation filed on behalf of the appellant of the recorded evidence and copies of annexures and Judgment by Learned Commissioner. 2. Facts are that on 22-05-2010, an Air crash accident occurred at Mangalore in which 158 persons were killed which, inter alia, included passengers and crew members of ill fated Air plane. Miss Sujata Siddharth Survase (Daughter of Appellants Siddharth and Mrs Pushpa) was one of them. The grievance of the appellants is limited against the order dated 15-04-2013 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, whereby direction was given for deduction of the amount of Rs Ten Lakhs earlier paid as interim compensation from the amount of Rs.25,87,655/- deposited by the Employer Air India Charter Ltd under the Emplo...
M/S. General Detergents Vs. Arun H. Merchant the Executive Director of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
1. Heard learned Advocates appearing on both sides. 2. Perused impugned judgment and record produced alongwith application. 3. Facts as argued and are narrated in the application for leave to appeal are summarised as follows:- (a) On 2nd November, 1998, the respondent, issued a cheque in favour of appellant bearing cheque No.390499 for Rs.15,02,092.80 drawn on ANZ Grindlays Bank in discharge of their liability. (b) The said cheque was dishonoured. The statutory notice u/s. 138 of N. I. Act, sent by appellant was served on the Respondent. Since payment was not made, on 17/12/1998, the Appellant filed a complaint u/s. 138 r/w 141 of N. I. Act. (c) The complainant's witness filed his Affidavit of Examination in Chief. In his further examination in chief, the applicant's witness has produced Exhibit C-16 a letter dated 7th April, 1998, written by the Accused stating therein that Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 were authorised by the board of the company to draw, negotiate and accept the cheques, Pr...
Vachaspati Sharma Vs. India Cements-capital and Finance Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Admit. Learned counsel for the Respondent waives service. The appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of the learned counsel. 2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 23 January 2013 on a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 34. 3. The Appellant and the Respondent entered into a lease agreement dated 25 March 2000 in two sets, one for a trailer and another for a tractor. There was allegedly a default on the part of the Appellant in repaying the outstanding dues. Clause-33 of the agreement provided for a reference to arbitration in the following terms: "Arbitration : 33. All disputes, differences, claims and questions, which may arise during the subsistence of this Agreement between the Lessor and the Lessee touching any matter c...
Ramesh Fakira Lohkare and Others Vs. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
1 Heard submissions at the Bar. Perused impugned oral Judgment by the Trial court. The appeal is directed against the order passed below Notice of Motion No. 2224 of 2012 taken out by Defendant no.4 in Long cause Suit no. 2734 of 2009 with the prayer in the N/M was for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 or Return of the Plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. The suit was disposed of as infructuous, on the ground that the building is completed and number of the plaintiffs had taken possession of the suit premises in suit structure situated at Dholkawala Chawl, a part of FP No.569, TPS IV, Mahim Division, Kakasahib Gadgil Cross lane, Dadar (West), Mumbai28. 2 Learned Judge of the City Civil court held that reliefs claimed in the plaint are infructuous because the plaintiffs have already entered into agreements with defendant no.4 and agreed for the implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme and accepted the compensation /rent for scheme. The scheme was declar...
Sardar Surinder Singh and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
R.M. Borde, J. 1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 Petitioners, who are the members of Sikh community, are challenging order dated 21.05.2012, issued by Respondent No.2 i.e. District Collector and Administrator, The Takhat Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Board, (Gurudwara Board), Nanded thereby reappointing Respondent No.4 as Superintendent of The Takhat Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Board, Nanded with effect from 22.05.2012. Petitioners also question pay fixation of Respondent No.4 at Rs.78,024/- per month instead of pay band of Rs.9300-34000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-, as prescribed by the Gurudwara Board. The petitioners also requested for issuance of direction for recovery of excess amount paid to Respondent No.4. The petitioner no.1 was a Member and Secretary of Gurudwara Board from 1969 up to 1990 and he is at present Secretary to the Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa, Diwan, Nanded) sinc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »