Mumbai Court April 2014 Judgments
Jaleshwar Singh Vs. M/S. Shelter Maker (i) Private Limited and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a Chartered Accountant by profession filed this consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service against the Opponents “ M/s.Shelter Maker (I) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Builders) for not delivering the possession of the office premises purchased for the purpose of office use, though major amount against consideration has been paid. 2. Complainant booked the office premises in the project viz. K/A Poonam Plaza situated at Land bearing CTS. No. 337, 343, 341/1 to 343/8 at Village Gundavari, Andheri East, Mumbai, Office Block No.410 admeasuring 445 sq.ft. for total consideration of Rs.17,80,000/-. Allotment letter dated 26th May, 2004 has been issued by the Opponent builders confirming the allotment of the office premises and also having received on that day amount of Rs.6,29,675/- from the Complainant. The balance amount of Rs.11,50,325/- was to be paid as per the stage of completion indicated in the allotment letter,...
Tag this Judgment!Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. Puran Maharashtra Automobiles ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
1. Heard the learning advocates for the respective sides at length, in both the petitions. 2. Rule, in both the Writ Petitions. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. WRIT PETITION NO.1455 OF 2013 4. The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 19th January 2013, passed in Revision Petition No. 13 of 2012 by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. By the impugned judgment and order, the auction proceedings carried out by the petitioners have been set aside solely on the ground that 15% of the auction amount was not deposited by the purchaser. 5. The petitioner No. 1 is a Bank registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1960"). Petitioner No. 2 is the Special Recovery Officer of the said bank at its Gulmandi Branch. Respondent No. 1 is the defaulting borrower. Respondent No. 2 is the auction purchaser. Respondent No. 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Zuari Industries Limited and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Chief Se ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri S. D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 5, Shri R. Gawas, holding for Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Shri H. D. Naik, Advocate for respondent No.6. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case stated by the petitioners, are that petitioner No.1 is a Company which has an industrial establishment in the State of Goa. Petitioner No.2 is an employee and shareholder of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 is a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner no.1. It is contended that respondent No.1 issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as "the said Act") dated 5th February, 2007, inter alia, intending to acquire the land bearing survey Nos. 188 (part), 189 (part) and 190 (part), admeasuring 1,81,200 sq. metres for the purpose of expansion of the Sancoale Industrial E...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman S/O Shankar Bandgar (Died) Through L.Rs. and Others Vs. Venkat ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
1. Heard, learned Advocates. 2. By order dated 20-04-2001, this Court admitted the matter. Taking into consideration the affidavit in reply and accompanying copy of the Panchanama of delivery of possession to the respondents in terms of the impugned order, interim relief was denied to the petitioner. However, the respondents were directed not to create any third party interests in the suit property and not to part with the possession of the suit property till the disposal of the petition. 3. The petitioner contends that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Laxman S/o Shankar Bandgar. They are owners and in possession of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 171/A admeasuring 10 Acres and 34 Gn. situated at Halgada, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. Narsu Khandu Bandgar is the original assese. He had two sons namely Shankar S/o Narsu and Rama S/o Narsu who are therefore real brothers. Shankar had one son namely Laxman and Rama had a son Venkat who are therefore cousin brothers. Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakant Gajanan Kadam and Others Vs. Abhishek K. Rai
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.7.2013 passed by Ad-hoc Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim restraining the appellants from creating any third party interests in the suit property until further orders. 2. The appellants are the owners of the suit property and respondent is the original plaintiff who has filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract in respect of the suit property against the appellants. He also filed a temporary injunction application seeking a restrainment of the appellants from dealing with the suit property and creating any third party interest therein. 3. It is the case of the respondent that the appellants through their constituted attorney agreed to sell to him the suit property known as œTicteatembavoril Borodo? also known œTikiyachi Teb? or œTikiyachi Temb? admeasuring 46,400 sq. mts situated at Corpal in the village Latambarcem, Bicholim,Goa more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the plaint, for a cons...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanudas Yeshwant Nagawade Since Deceased Through Legal Representative ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
1) The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 1987 which was pending in the District Court Ahmednagar. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.68 of 1976 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamkhed. Decree of partition and possession is given in favour of respondent No.1. Both the sides are heard. 2) The suit was filed by respondent No.1 in respect of seven agricultural lands and two house properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was the ancestral property of his predecessor “ Yeshwant Nagawade. It is contended that defendant No.2 Chandrabhaga is widow of Yeshwant. It is contended that Yeshwant left behind other heirs like a son by name Bhanudas (defendant No.1) and a daughter by name Prayagbai (defendant No.5). It is the case of the plaintiff that he is son of defendant No.1 and defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Simon Laximon Gopi and Another Vs. PaskIn Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Afonso, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16/01/2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa (Tribunal, for short) in Claim Petition No. 37/2008. 3. The appeal was admitted on 25/06/2010 and hearing was ordered to be expedited. As per the report of the bailiff, on the notices issued to the parties for the purpose of Lok Adalat, it is revealed that the respondent no. 1 has expired. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 submits that the respondent no. 2 is the sole legal representative of deceased respondent no. 1 and he has no objection if the amendment to the cause title of the appeal is made accordingly. Hence, leave as prayed for is granted to the appellants to amend the cause title accordingly to show respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Shikshan Sanstha and Others Vs. S.N. Dutonde and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Dispute is about a public trust having registration number PTR no. F-47 by name Ashok Educational Society duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, hereinafter referred to as BPT Act. Petitioners seek a direction to the administrator on a Public Trust to hand back the charge of Trust to them in terms of judgment dated 30.4.1998 of the Joint Charity Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as Jt. C.C.) in F.A. 14 and 15 immediately. It appears that the petitioners on 10.12.2012 moved an application for restoration of charge back to them as elected body and Joint Charity Commissioner rejected it on 20.12.2012. Challenge to this order and other consequential orders/steps is also added on 24.2.2013. Petitioners claim that there have been two elections of the governing body i.e managing committee “ one in 2007 and the other in 2012. Respondent-2 Deputy Charity Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as Dy. C.C.) on 5.10.2012 has substituted Respondent-1 a...
Tag this Judgment!Dnyandev Ramlal Patil Vs. Sanjeev Bhavlal Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
Per Court: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties at length. 2. The petitioner / original plaintiff, has filed RCS No.54 of 2006 on 27.4.2006, for seeking declaration and cancellation of will deeds dated 20.4.2001 and 16.11.2002. 3. It has been specifically contended in paragraph No.7 of the said suit plaint that the petitioner is in possession of the property, which is alleged to have been passed over to the respondents / defendants by virtue of the will deeds dated 20.4.2001 and 16.11.2002. 4. In the said paragraph No.7, the petitioner has expressed a serious apprehension about the threat to his possession. Nevertheless, the suit was restricted only to seeking declaration and cancellation of the will deeds dated 20.4.2001 and 16.11.2002. 5. The petitioner submits that since the respondents have forcibly dispossessed him on 20.6.2012, he preferred an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") on 20.3.2013. By the said a...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
1. This Criminal revision Application has been filed by applicant- original accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was convicted in R.C.C. No.127/1998 on 6.11.2008 by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shindkheda and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- and in default, to undergo further S.I. for 1 month for offence punishable under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act for short) and his Criminal Appeal no.132/2008 to Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule has been dismissed on 8.10.2010. 2. Facts of the prosecution case in brief are as under: Accused was running grocery shop œAnil Provisions? at Pashte, Taluka Shindkheda, District Dhule. On 18.1.1997 at about 11.30 a.m. Food Inspector R.I. Jethar (hereinafter referred to as complainant P.W.1) went to the shop of accused along with Panch Ashok Sonawane. Complainant disclosed his identity and intention to draw sample. In the shop there was an open ti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »