Mumbai Court October 2014 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.
Sagar Construction Company Vs. Manoharlal Kishorilal Gupta HUF and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
1. The Plaintiff has filed the above Suit against the Defendants, inter alia seeking specific performance of an Agreement for Sale dated 16th October, 1985 (Exhibit-C to the Plaint) for sale of property situate at Mulund in the registration sub-district and suburban district at Bandra bearing Survey No.315, Hissa No.1 (p) admeasuring 8958.59 sq. mtrs. and Survey No.316, Hissa No.1A(p) corresponding to CTS No.844 admeasuring 83.6 sq.mtrs. or thereabouts, in all admeasuring 9042.17 sq. mtrs. along with the structures standing thereon ("the suit property"). 2. By an ad-interim order dated 15th December, 1987, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, was appointed as Receiver of the suit property. By an order dated 25th October, 1990, the ad-interim order dated 15th December, 1987, was confirmed. It was further directed that the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, should not dispossess Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 and the heirs of Defendant No.2 from the second floor premises but to continue th...
Vijaya Balbhim Deshpande and Others Vs. Nilabai Tayasaheb Birajdar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. 2. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties taken up for hearing forthwith. 3. The Revisionary Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 30-8-2011 passed by the Learned IInd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Solapur, by which order the application Exhibit 30 filed by the Respondents who are the decree holders for appointment of the Court Commissioner for carrying out the work of execution of the Sale Deed, came to be allowed. 4. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus: The Respondents herein are the original Plaintiffs who had filed Special Civil Suit No.90 of 1972 for specific performance of the agreement in respect of the Sale Deed of land bearing block No.22/2 admeasuring about 3 Hectors and 84 Ares situated at Village Umarga, Taluka Akkalkot, District Solapur. It is not necessary to refer to the intervening facts. Suffice it to say that the Suit came to be decreed in favou...
Sandip Shantaram Palande Vs. Smita Sandip Palande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. This is an Appeal preferred by the Appellant-husband challenging the judgment and decree dated 16th May 2006 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No.2, Pune. The Appellant-husband filed a petition seeking a decree of divorce. In the said petition a counter claim was filed by the Respondent-wife for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. 2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the petition filed by the Appellant has been dismissed and the counter claim filed by the Respondent-wife has been decreed by granting a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The learned Judge of the Family Court directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1200/- per month to the Respondent and sum of Rs.1500/- per month to the daughter, if the Appellant fails to resume cohabitation within a period of one month from the date of the decree. 3. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Counsel appea...
Chief Engineer, Irrigation Vibhag (Govt. of Maharashtra), Sinchan Bhav ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Since common issues arise in all these writ petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Rule in each writ petition. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. In these writ petitions, the order dated 7-1-2013 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court Gondia in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the said Act) allowing aforesaid application in each case and granting relief to the respondent is under challenge. There being similarity of facts in each case resulting in common reasoning in each order, the facts in Writ Petition No.6380/2013 are being referred to. 4. The respondent claimed to have been working on daily wages with the petitioners since the year 1981. He continued to do so till the year 2000. According to the respondent, in terms of the Kalelkar Award, those employees who had been working continuously for a period of five years in t...
Namdev @ Ashok Mahadev Rasal Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. The appellant-original accused No.1 who stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 302, 201 and 498A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of which to undergo R.I. for one year; R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one year; and R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for three months, with direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by judgment dated 29th December,2010, in Sessions Case No.596 of 2006, by this appeal questions correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus:- P.W.4 ASI Mohan Ashru Lokhande who on 16.6.2006 was attached to Uruli Kanchan Out Post under Loni Kalbhor Police Station, was informed by one Heera at about 5 p.m. that ...
Abhay Anant Chougule Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2014
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia prays for a direction to the respondents that the reservation in respect of the petitioner's land bearing survey no.547 admeasuring 27.41 Ares situated at Ichalkaranji District Kolhapur (for short 'the land') kept under reservation as site no.8 for a RTO office in the sanctioned development plan for Ichalkaranji city, has lapsed under the provisions of section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner also challenges the communication dated 26.8.2011 of respondent no.5 rejecting the petitioner's application for a development permission on the ground that the said land is under reservation. In short the facts are : 2. The petitioner is the owner of the land in question. Respondent no.5 the Ichalkaranji Municipal Council is the planning authority for Ichalkaranji city. A development plan for Ichalkaranji city was sanctione...
Dhondiram Limbaji Karad Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. The appellants/Original Accused Nos.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 23 and 26, who stand convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 149, 302 read with 120-B, 143, 148 read with 120-B, 323 read with 120-B, 427 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, RI for three years and each accused to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which to undergo further RI for two months, RI for one month, RI for two years and each accused to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of which to undergo further RI for six months, with no separate sentence being passed for offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 149, 323 read with 149 and 427 read with 149 of the IPC, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, by the Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, by judgment dated 30/11/2001, in Sessions Case No.126 of 1998, by these appeals challenge the correctness of their conviction and...
Kamlabai and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collecto ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. These appeals arising out of the judgment and decree dated 20th July, 1998 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.50/1991 by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants in First Appeal No.520/1998 are the claimants whose land bearing field survey No.225/2 of Mouza Asra, Taluka Bhatkuli, District Amravati admeasuring 1.23 H.R. approximately equivalent to 3 acres was acquired by the respondents, who are the appellants in First Appeal No.164/1999 for extention of village gavthan. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.2.1989. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the value of the land at the rate of Rs.6,500/ per acre and accordingly passed the award on 30.3.1991. Since the claimants felt that the compensation was insufficient and grossly disproportionate to the actual market value of the land, the award was challenged by making reference under Section 18 of the Land Ac...
Radhyesham Ramkaran Choube Vs. A.S. Mogare, through L. Rs. and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. These appeals arise out of common judgment dated 10.08.2001 thereby allowing said appeals filed by the original defendant and setting aside the decree for possession. In view of similarity of facts and common evidence being led in the suits, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. For sake of convenience, the appellant is being referred to as the plaintiff while the respondents are being referred to as defendants. The suit property comprises of premises in occupation of the respondents initially in the capacity as tenants. The entire house property was owned by one Robort Sitaram and each defendant was the tenant of the respective portions let out to them. The rent payable by each of the defendant was Rs. 30/- per month. On 29.08.1979 the defendants entered into an agreement with their landlordRobert Sitaram for purchasing their respective premises. However, subsequently on 28.12.1979 the plaintiff purchased said property by registered sale deed. A...
Dhaval Vs. Kantilal Bherulal Jain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2014
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This is an appeal of the minor child through his maternal uncle against his father - respondent, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22nd October,2008 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mumbai, awarding the appellant only an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance. 2. The maternal uncle of the appellant in the capacity as guardian had filed a petition against the respondent-father under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act interalia praying that the respondent be directed to pay maintenance at Rs.50,000/- per month which will cover the appellant's food, clothing, shelter, school fees and expenses connected with the schools, transport and medical expenses. 3. The respondent was married to the deceased mother of the appellant on 28.6.1998 which was solemnized in Rajasthan. On 19.9.1999 the appellant was born from the wedlock. On 5.12.2001 the mother of the appellant had received burn injuries and therefore, was brought t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »