Mumbai Court May 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.
Chandrabhan Chunilal Agarwal and Another Vs. Sharad by Son of Ramgopal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2014
1. Defendant no.1 has filed these two Notice of Motions for various reliefs. Notice no. 765 of 2009 is filed inter alia praying for recalling and setting aside the orders dated 11th September, 2007 and 3rd October 2005 passed by this court disposing of Suit No. 4816 of 2000 and further seeks that the orders dated 2nd December 2000, 18th June, 2002 and 2nd February, 2001 be set aside and/or recalled. Defendants also seek that court receiver shall take possession of the properties pursuant to the order dated 2nd December, 2000 and shall restore the position as on that date by removing the persons that may be found in the premises. 2. Notice of Motion No. 591 of 2009 is filed by the original 1st defendant in Suit No. 2687 of 2001 inter alia praying for recalling and setting aside the order dated 6th May 2008, 9th January 2004 and 5th April, 2004. Defendant no.1 has also prayed that the court receiver appointed by this court on 9th January, 2004 be directed to take possession of the proper...
Canara Bank Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2014
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10th September, 2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and sought a declaration that it is entitled to commission at the rate of 3% of the value of the guarantees issued by it in favour of the Prothonotary and Senior Master at the request of M/s. Shah Thakur and Sons. 2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are M/s. Manish Estate Private Limited and M/s. Shah Diagnostics Institute Private Limited Respondent Nos.4 to 7 (in the title through inadvertence two respondents have been arrayed as respondent No.4) are individuals who had guaranteed the amounts due and payable by respondent No.3 to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 was the owner of an immovable property in Mumbai. The property was mortgaged with the petitioner as security for repayment of the facilities sanctioned by the petitioner to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is the sister concern of respondent No.2. 3. The question of law raised by the petitioner admits of ...
Sunil and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-06-2014
1. Present Criminal Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, whose application Exh. 306 in R.C.C. No.398/2002 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad, for discharge, was rejected on 7.8.2013 and Criminal Revision No. 82/2013 filed before Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad also came to be rejected on 14.2.2014. 2. Notice only to respondent No.1/ State. Learned A.P.P. waives service for respondent No.1/ State. Heard finally at admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. 3. R.C.C. No.398/2002 has been filed against the petitioner and other 9 accused under Sections 218, 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The case of prosecution is that, accused No.1 (as arrayed in the charge sheet) was Chairman of the Osmanabad District Central Cooperative Bank ("ODCC Bank" for short) and accused Nos.2 to 6 were officials of the Bank and accused Nos.1 to 10 entered into conspiracy to chea...
Chandrabhan Chunilal Agarwal and Another Vs. Sharad by Son of Ramgopal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2014
1. Defendant no.1 has filed these two Notice of Motions for various reliefs. Notice no. 765 of 2009 is filed inter alia praying for recalling and setting aside the orders dated 11th September, 2007 and 3rd October 2005 passed by this court disposing of Suit No. 4816 of 2000 and further seeks that the orders dated 2nd December 2000, 18th June, 2002 and 2nd February, 2001 be set aside and/or recalled. Defendants also seek that court receiver shall take possession of the properties pursuant to the order dated 2nd December, 2000 and shall restore the position as on that date by removing the persons that may be found in the premises. 2. Notice of Motion No. 591 of 2009 is filed by the original 1st defendant in Suit No. 2687 of 2001 inter alia praying for recalling and setting aside the order dated 6th May 2008, 9th January 2004 and 5th April, 2004. Defendant no.1 has also prayed that the court receiver appointed by this court on 9th January, 2004 be directed to take possession of the proper...
M/S. Punya Coal Roadlines Through Its Proprietor Yugpradhan and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-06-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Petitioner 3-A before us is a joint venture firm (JV) of other petitioners and all of them challenge the order dated 19.2.2014 by which the Letter Of Allotment i.e. LOA of the contract of petitioner to supply hiring of equipments (HOE) for removal of overload burden of Padmapur opencast mine came to be cancelled and its earnest money deposit of Rs.42,76,100/- came to be forfeited. Similarly, the said JV and its all constituent firms or partners are debarred from participation in future tenders which may be floated by respondents for a period of one year. Letter of allotment by respondent is dated 20.9.2013 and as per the petitioners, as site was placed in its possession on 12.11.2013, events prior to that date are not decisive and not relevant. Clause 6 of Letter Of Allotment (LOA) is relied upon to urge that it casts obligation upon petitioners to commence work within 10 days thereafter. Show cause notice dated 18.10.2013 asking it to commenc...
M/S. Vidyut Metallics Ltd. Vs. the Divisional Manager
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2014
Naredra Kawde, Member: [1] Complainant company is engaged in manufacturing of safety razors and surgical blades and availed Floater Fidelity Guarantee Group Insurance Policy bearing no.46/110900/9356 to provide insurance cover to the contingency resulting in loss due to infidel nature of the companys employees. One S.K.Das, Regional Sales Manager of the Companys office at Indore allegedly breached the trust and defrauded the complainant company by accepting the cheques which were bounced against the delivery of the consumer products to M/s.Abhishek Corporation located at Indore, one of the agents of the company. Police complaint was filed against S.K.Das. It is alleged that said Das has put the complainant company to loss by his willful breach of written rules in connivance with sale proprietor of M/s.Abhishek Corporation to the tune of Rs.7,31,000/-. The complainant intimated this incident resulting into loss to the opponent insurer. Surveyor was appointed. However, claim payable und...
The Bank of Rajasthan Limited Vs. Dr. Suryakant Sukhdeo Gite and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2014
1. Admit. Notice after admission made returnable forthwith by consent. Heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The proceeding is filed to challenge the order made by 5th Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad on Exh. 41 filed in R.C.S. No. 432/2007. The revision applicant/Bank of Rajasthan had filed application at Exh. 41 as defendant under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. and had requested to reject the plaint. It is the case of Bank that there is bar of provision of section 34 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act' for short). The application was opposed by the other side/plaintiffs. 3. It is the case of bank that it had advanced loan of Rs. five lakh to respondent No. 3 - Vinod Punjabi for purchasing flat No. A-3 from the developer, respondent No. 2. It is contended that on 29.4.2002 there was the agreement of sale between respondent No. 2 and respond...
M/S Cosme Mathias Menezes, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Naguesh Electronics, Part ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-05-2014
1. This petition is directed against the order passed on 12.4.2013 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 74/2012 thereby setting aside the order dated 27.6.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, rejecting the application of the respondents filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC seeking quashing and setting aside of ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.01.2010. 2. The facts relevant for deciding this petition are stated in brief as under:- a) The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of money against the respondents. Initially the suit was filed against the proprietorship firm namely, M/s Naguesh Electronics, through its sole proprietor Mr. Ratnakant Naik. The suit was not filed against partnership firm or against its partners. b) The sole proprietor, on receipt of the summons, appeared before the trial Court on 3.9.2005 and filed his written statement together with counter claim. A preliminary objection was taken by the sole defendant that firm, M/s Naguesh Electronics, was a dul...
Anil Dattatray Parab and Others Vs. Jayadev Bal Thackeray
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2014
1. By this Notice of Motion, the plaintiffs seek that the counter claim made by the defendant as pleaded in paragraphs 5 to 7, 9 and 126 to 132 of the affidavit in support of the caveat dated 12th February, 2013 be rejected as not maintainable being beyond the testamentary and intestate jurisdiction of this court. 2. Mr.Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs invited my attention to various paragraphs of the affidavit in support of caveat which indicates that it is averred by the defendant that the defendant has 1/3rd share in all the immoveable and moveable properties known and unknown to him and seeks to make a counter claim in the said affidavit in support of the caveat in respect of his alleged 1/3rd share in all the properties of the deceased Mr.Bal K.Thackeray. My attention is also invited to the prayers in the affidavit in support of caveat by which the defendant has sought a declaration that the defendant is entitled to 1/3rd share in the entire estate and p...
Deelip and Another Vs. Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs, Aurangabad Th ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2014
1. This proceeding is filed under section 83 (9) of Waqf Act, 1995 to challenge the judgment and order of Waqf Tribunal Aurangabad delivered in Waqf Application No. 66/2012. The application filed by present respondent Nos. 4 and 5 under section 83 (2) of Waqf Act, 1995 is allowed by the Tribunal and the transaction of lease made in favour of present revision applicants by the Chief Officer of Waqf Board is declared as being null and void, nonest and it is cancelled. Both the sides are heard. 2. Present respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the persons interested in waqf, Dargah Hazrat Sayyad Shah Dawood Gung Lashkar Magrabi Aulia, Baijipura, Aurangabad. Property bearing C.T.S. No. 12504 (out of survey No. 33) admeasuring 4593 Sq. Mtrs. belongs to this institution, a religious institution. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 perform religious rites and worship at the said Dargah and so, they say that they are the persons interested in the waqf. 3. In the proceeding filed before the Waqf Tribunal, they ch...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »