Mumbai Court March 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.
Raosaheb and Others Vs. Vinod and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
1) This revision application is filed against the order made on Exhibit 51 in Regular Civil Suit No.125 of 2008 by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ausa. The application filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to withdraw the suit is allowed by the trial Court subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/-. Both the sides are heard. 2) Regular Civil Suit No.125 of 2008 was filed for relief of partition and possession of ancestral and joint family property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that marriage between their mother and defendant No.1 Raosaheb had taken place in the year 1970. It is contended that Raosaheb married with defendant No.2 when his first marriage was subsisting. It is contended that defendant Nos.3 and 4 and a daughter are born to defendant No.2 from Raosaheb but they cannot be called as legitimate children. It is contended that to deprive the plaintiffs of the suit property, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 joined their hands and they c...
Sanjay Tarakumar Tibdiwala Vs. Jawed
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. By an order dated 10/03/2014, the petitioner was directed to file a specific affidavit clearly stating therein whether he intends to deposit the entire amount as ordered by the Compensation Court alongwith interest accrued thereon before this Court. If the petitioner pleads of financial difficulties, he shall submit a list and details of his immovable properties by filing an affidavit to that extent. 3. An affidavit has now been tendered across the bar and a copy thereof is served on the respondent's Advocate. It is an admitted position that the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Court dated 15/12/2009 in W.C.Application No. 19/2001 has not been challenged by the petitioner and has therefore attained finality. 4. Through the affidavit, the petitioner submits as follows: (a) He is not liable to pay the compensation. (b) By a...
Chandrakant and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
1) This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of MARJI No.172/2008 which was pending in the Court of the District Judge-4, Aurangabad. The application was filed by the present appellant for condonation of delay of more than 1 year and 8 months caused in filing Regular Civil Appeal against the decision given by the trial Court in a suit filed for relief of injunction. Both the sides are heard. 2) Regular Civil Suit No.831 of 2003 was filed by present appellants against the respondents. The respondents include officers of the Survey Department and officers of the Municipal Council, Paithan. The other defendant are said to be neighbours of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed in respect of house property bearing Nos. 1856 to 1859 having size of 60 x 49 ft situated at Kaherwada, Taluka Paithan. Relief of perpetual injunction was sought by the appellants and it is refused by the trial Court. There are allegations against the officers of the Survey Department and the Municipal Council...
Remedial Resolutions Advisors Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Capri Uk Invest ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
1. The Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiffs for reliefs in the nature of attachment before judgment in a money Suit. The Suit claim arises out of what is described as a Commitment Agreement executed by the parties. 2. The Plaintiffs' case in the Suit may be briefly set out as follows: Plaintiff No. 1 (a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956) is set up by Plaintiff No. 2 (a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA) and Plaintiff No. 3 (promotee/director of Plaintiff No. 2 and Director and Executive Chairman of Plaintiff No. 1). The business of Plaintiff No. 1 consists of acquisition and dealing in portfolios of non-performing retail loans from financial institutions. Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant No. 1 (an investment company incorporated in UK) entered into a Commitment Agreement on 23 December 2009. The agreement envisaged setting up of an entity in India (referred to therein as œRCIL?) with an initial common equity capital of Rs. 10...
Geetabai Ramchandra Pawar Vs. Rambhau Maruti Pawar and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
1) This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.151 of 1999 which was pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge Ahmednagar. The decision given by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.44 of 1993 in favour of present appellant is set aside by the First Appellate Court and her suit is dismissed. Both sides are heard. 2) The appellant had filed suit for relief of declaration and injunction. It is her case that she is widow of one Ramchandra who died on 20-9-1991. It is her case that in the year 1966 in family partition with defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.1 and 2) Ramchandra got land Gut Nos.237, 220, 219 and 160 from village Jamb and it was ancestral, joint family property of Ramchandra and defendant Nos.1 and 2. 3) It is her case that she had married with Ramchandra about 48 to 50 years prior to the date of suit. She has no issue from Ramchandra but according to her, she was cohabiting with Ramchandra till his last breath. 4) It is...
Shankar Govindlal Patwari Vs. Sanjay Rameshwar Sharma and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
1) The appeal is admitted. Notice after admission made returnable forthwith by consent. Both sides are heard for final disposal. 2) The appeal is filed under the provision of Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order made on temporary injunction application filed by present respondents in Special Civil Suit no.133 of 2012 which is pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule. The suit is filed for relief of specific performance of contract by respondent No.1. Relief of temporary injunction is granted against the appellant, owner of the property, and he is restrained from making construction over the suit property till decision of the suit. 3) The suit is filed in respect of open space bearing CTS No.3238 admeasuring 59.04 square meters and situated within limits of Dhule Corporation. It is the case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff that defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the suit property to him under written agreement dated 16-9-2011. It is contended t...
Laurinda Gomes and Others Vs. Janu Hari Gaude and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. A. R. Kantak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 21.09.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants was partly allowed and the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- was ordered to be paid to the appellants together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum on a sum of Rs.1,81,163/- after deducting the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by order dated 27.06.2002. 3. Upon being served with the summons, the respondent no.2 filed cross objection challenging the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 4. Mr. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the Tribunal has refused compensation on the basis that the business income of the deceased of running of a b...
Narendra K. Ambwani Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.K. Menon, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Union of India and Regional Passport Officer to forthwith extend the validity of the Petitioner's passport by a period of 9 years or 19 years from 26th August, 2014. 3. It appears that in the year 2003, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a criminal case interalia against M/s. Johnson and Johnson Ltd. and the Petitioner. The Petitioner was at the material time the President and Managing Director of Johnson and Johnson Ltd. As a consequence, when the Petitioner's passport which was valid till 9th October, 2013 ran out of usable pages, the Petitioner applied for fresh booklet. However, Respondent no.2 cancelled the existing passport instead of issuing an additional booklet. Thereafter, the Petitioner made an application before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Mumbai for a d...
imambi and Others Vs. Mohammad Ismail and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
1) Both revision applications are admitted. Notices after admission made returnable forthwith by consent. Heard both sides for final disposal. 2) Civil Revision Application No.39 of 2014 is filed by the landlord and the other revision is filed by the tenant against the judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No.2/2012 which was pending before the learned Principal District Judge, Latur. The Rent Appeal was filed by the landlord against the judgment and order of Rent Controller, Udgir given in proceeding No.1979/RCA/3. The proceeding before the Rent Controller was filed by the landlord for eviction on the ground of default and also on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for personal use. the Rent Controller rejected the application. In appeal filed by the landlord, decision is given in favour of the landlord on the ground of default but the claim of possession on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use of the landlord is rejected. 3) The proceeding before...
State of Maharashtra, Through Collector and Another Vs. Bhikulal Mahad ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The State of Maharashtra had filed these three Second Appeals against the respective respondents, who are the heirs of original plaintiff late Shri Bhikulal Mahadeo Agrawal being aggrieved by the common Judgment and Decree dated 2nd May, 1997 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Buldana, in Regular Civil Appeal Nos.105, 126 and 127 all of 1990, arising out the common Judgment and Decree dated 17th August, 1990 passed by learned Second Joint Civil Judge [Senior Division], Buldana, in Regular Civil Suit Nos.134 and 135 both of 1987, so also the order allowing the Cross-Objection filed by the Plaintiff in Regular Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1990. 2. In support of the Second Appeals, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the appellant-State vehemently argued that the suits filed by the respondent-original plaintiff in all these cases were barred in the light of Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader further contende...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »