Mumbai Court August 2016 Judgments
Kishor K. Mehta and Others Vs. Justice J.N. Patel (Retd.) Ex Chairman ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. 2. As the appeals are heard finally at length, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are decided at the stage of admission itself. 3. As both these appeals raise common question of facts and law, they are heard together and being decided together by this common judgment. 4. Both the appeals take an exception to an order dated 26th August, 2016 passed by the City Civil Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai in Notice of Motion No.2132 of 2016 in Suit No.1498 of 2016. 5. For the sake of convenience initially we deal with the facts and controversy involved in Appeal from Order (Stamp) No.24200 of 2016, as the appellants there in had filed the suit before the Trial Court. 6. Appellants are the permanent Trustees of Leelavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust ). By filing the Notice of Motion in the suit filed before the trial Court, appellants had sought the interim relief that the effect and operation of the res...
Tag this Judgment!Vithhalrao and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for respective parties, heard finally. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common Judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.91 of 2014 and Criminal Revision Application No.92 of 2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded dated 13.2.2015, the original accused in Sessions Case No.208 of 2013 has preferred these writ petitions. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petitions, are as follows: a] On the basis of the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 Priya Waghmare Crime bearing No.10/2012 came to be registered at Police Station, Bhagyanagar, District Nanded for the offence punishable under section 498A, 497, 328, 294, 292, 323, 504, 506, 509, 114, 109 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After due investigation, Police Station Bhagya Nagar has submitted charge sheet in the Court and the case is committed to the Sessions Court as offences alleged to hav...
Tag this Judgment!Sonal Deepak Shah and Others Vs. M/s. Rachana Developers and Marketing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Applicants (Original Defendants) for setting aside an exparte decree passed on 19 December 2012 in the Summary Suit herein. 2. By this decree, the Defendants were ordered and decreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the filing of the suit till payment or realization. When the Motion came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, the parties settled the matter and filed consent terms. On 19 November 2015, the consent terms were taken on record and the Motion was disposed of in its terms. The consent terms provided for payment of a sum of Rs.90 lacs in two installments of Rs.45 lacs each by the Defendants to the Plaintiff in full and final settlement of the suit claim, the first installment becoming payable on or before 20 December 2015 and the second on or before 20 February 2016. In case of default, the Notice of Motion was to stand dismissed and the Plaintiff to be entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!Gaurishankar Vs. Asaram and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Civil Application is filed for recalling the order dated 23.12.2011 passed in Second Appeal No.356/2001, thereby disposing of the Second Appeal in terms of compromise arrived between the parties to the Second Appeal. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant was not aware about the filing of Second Appeal by respondent nos.2 and 3, and respondent no.1 also did not inform the applicant about the pendency of Second Appeal. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 therein filed Regular Civil Appeal No.183/1995 before the District Court, Aurangabad. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.06.1995 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.475/1994, the said Appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 29.06.1995 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.475/1994 was set aside. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order by the First Appellate Court, the appellant preferred Second Appeal. The Appeal was admitted. 3. It is submitted that tho...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Bansilal Todkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. Perused the papers. 2. The applicant herein is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.110 of 2016 registered at Narayangav Police Station, Pune for the offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that Vandana, who happens to be the cousin sister of the present applicant lodged the report at the police station alleging therein that there was civil dispute between her uncle and her father. It is alleged that after death of father, the name of Dnyaneshwar Ganpat Todkar was mutated in the revenue record in respect of the properties between both the brothers including agricultural lands bearing Gat Nos.1542, 1559, 1562, 1567 and 1627 situated at village Gunjalwadi, Taluka Junnar, District Pune. Both the brothers were cultivating their respective lands. On 15/11/2008 Bansilal Todkar i.e. father of the applicant died. The mother of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul and Others Vs. The Divisional joint Registrar, Co-operative Soci ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The petition is filed to challenge the order made by Divisional Joint Registrar, Nashik Division, Nashik in appeal No. 199/2016 on 13.6.2016. In the appeal filed by present respondents, office bearers of Taklibhan Vividh Karyakari seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Tahsil Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar, respondent No. 3, the learned Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies Nashik had granted interim relief, stay to the operation of order made by the learned Registrar Cooperative Societies on 24.5.2016 by which learned Assistant Registrar had appointed administrator on the aforesaid Society as provided under section 77(A) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). It appears that due to stay order, the charge which was taken over by the Administrator was required to be returned back to the respondents. Office bearers represented to the Adminis...
Tag this Judgment!Jose Carlos D'Silva and Another Vs. Pedro Xavier Elias D'Cunha @ Pedro ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners, who are the original defendants, are challenging the order dated 13/10/2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No.263/2000/E (old Special Civil Suit No.248/1992/A). By the impugned order, the application for amendment of plaint filed by the respondents/plaintiffs has been allowed. 3. The brief facts are that the respondents filed the aforesaid Civil Suit for mandatory injunction seeking demolition of construction of garage of the petitioners and for their eviction from the suit house. It is a matter of record that the petitioners had raised an issue of mundkarship which was referred to the Mamlatdar on 25/03/1994. The issue was finally answered in favour of the petitioners on 7/01/2014. The records and proceedings were transferred to the Civil Court on 17/07/2014. After that on 10/09/2014, the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Siddhivinayak Audyogik Vasahat Vs. Murlidhar Vedu Jadhav (deceased) th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
1. By this second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant (original plaintiff) has impugned the order and judgment dated 1st August 2015 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Niphad, Nashik dismissing the Regular Civil Appeal No.82 of 2012 filed by the appellant. The appellant had impugned the judgment and decree dated 15th September 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Niphad, Nashik in Special Civil Suit No.54 of 2002 filed by the appellant inter alia praying for specific performance of the agreements dated 15th August 1990 and 15th November 1999 in respect of the suit property i.e. land bearing Gat No.2509 situated at village Ozar, Tal.Naiphad, Dist.Nashik (Hereinafter referred to as the Suit Property). The parties are described in later part of the judgment as they were described in the proceedings before the trial Court. 2. Both the parties have agreed that the facts in both the matters are identical. I am summarizing the fa...
Tag this Judgment!P. Shankaranarayan and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
Oral Judgment: (G.S. Kulkarni J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The grievance of the Petitioners is as regards additional compensation of Rs. 3.5 lacs which came to be distributed at the hands of the then Hon'ble Guardian Minister to the employees of Respondent No.5 Standard Alkali Limited. The principal grievance of the Petitioners in the writ petition is that as the Petitioners are denied such additional compensation, there is a representation dated 23.12.2008 made by the Petitioners to the then Hon'ble Minister and other concerned Authorities and that this Court should issue directions that the representation be decided. 3. It is not in dispute that there is a closure of Respondent No.5 in the year 2005. The basis of the writ petition is an article in the news paper which is annexed at page 46 of the Petition (Exhibit E ) which records that the then Hon'ble Guardian Minister had distributed additional compensation to the 57 workers of Respondent No.5 on ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivram Enterprises Vs. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Having ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri S. N. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Gomes Pereira, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent no. 1 and Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2. 2. The above Petition, inter alia, seeks for a declaration that the tender process under the second tender notice dated 20.02.2016 is bad, void ab initio and unconstitutional. It further seeks for a writ of mandamus or any other direction to the Respondent no. 2 to award the tender to the Petitioner for the sale of scrap material and sale of non levy sugar under the tender process dated 20.04.2016 issued by the Respondent no. 2. 3. Briefly, it is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent no. 2 published a tender notice dated 20.04.2016 for the sale of scrap material, sale of brown sugar (season 2014/15 and 2015-16 1300 quintals, sale of non levy sugar (season 2014-15) 7295 quintals and the sale of 'A' grade molasses 1500 metric tonnes. I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »