Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at admissions stage. 2. The Petitioner claiming to be social worker, has filed this Petition seeking declaration that the construction of commercial complex, namely, Ranjeet Singh Market and Bindu Mangal Karyalaya on Survey No.1803 at Nanded admeasuring 51,312 Sq. Ft. carried out by Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 (hereafter referred as concessionaires ) is illegal and unauthorized. Petitioner wants that the Respondent Authorities should demolish the structure and the 'concession agreement' dated 30th November 2012 executed by Respondent No.4 with Concessionaires be held to be illegal and void ab initio. The Petitioner is questioning the authority of Respondent No.4 who signed the agreement as Deputy Commissioner and wants a departmental inquiry to be held against him. Petitioner has prayed that Concessionaires be black listed and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1.The present petition raises an issue regarding applicability of the concept of 'child in the womb' vis-a-vis the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948(here-in- after referred as 'Act, 1948').2. The Petitioner has initiated proceedings invoking section 25 of the Act, 1948, demanding the possession of the agricultural lands by filing an application bearing tenancy case No. 10 of 1981. The Tahasildar, Raver, dismissed the said application of the petitioner vide its judgment and order dated 23/06/1983, the petitioner aggrieved by the said order, preferred tenancy appeal bearing No. 52 of 1983, before Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon. The said appeal was allowed by the sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, vide judgment and order dated 06/09/1986. The respondents aggrieved by the same preferred revision application No.186 of 1986 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide its judgment and ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
:This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30th September, 1986 by the Tenancy Awalkarkun, Rahuri in Tenancy case No. 17 of 1986 and Judgment and order dated 6th July, 1987 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rahuri Sub Division, Rahuri in Appeal No. TNC/Appeal/11/86 and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune on 7th June, 1991 in Case No. MRT.AH.X.-7/87(Tnc.B.286/87), Pune. The back ground facts for filing this Writ Petition as disclosed in the Writ Petition are as under :-The petitioners herein are the original opponents in Tenancy Case No. 17 of 1986, in a a suo- moto enquiry initiated by the Tahasildar. It is the case of the petitioners that the land Survey No. 65/1 was purchased by the petitioner No. 2 on 18th December, 1984 to the extent of 4 R of village Chinch Vihire,Tq. Rahuri. The said land was purchased for the consideration of Rs. 3,000/- by registered sale-deed and mutation entry was effected on 26th February, 1985. The said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1) The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.118/1996 and Regular Civil Appeal No.128/2001. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar, dismissed the suit filed by the present appellants for redemption of mortgage and this decision is confirmed by the first Appellate Court. Both the sides are heard. 2) The suit was filed in respect of three properties like House property Gram Panchayat House No.974, Gram Panchayat House No.275 and Gram Panchayat House No. 976. These properties were subsequently given municipal numbers when the Village Panchayat was converted into Nagar Palika and corresponding numbers are given in the plaint. 3) It is the case of the plaintiffs that father of the plaintiff No.1 namely Punamchand was owner of these properties and under a deed of mortgage dated 23-4-1970 he gave the property to defendant No.1, one cooperative society. It is contended that amount of Rs.25,000/- was taken by Punamchand from defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. This first appeal is admitted on 12th March, 1998. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Appellant Banks suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.27,76,137/- and for preliminary decree for sale of the mortgaged property for recovery of the said amount was decreed against the borrower original defendant No.1, but was dismissed against the guarantors i.e. defendants No.2 to 6. Hence, this first appeal against the guarantors. 3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, in short, is as under: That, the original defendant No.1 has availed a loan of Rs.10 (ten) lacs on 12.02.1988 and 10.03.1988 for the purposes of purchase of a truck with bore-well Rig, Machine, Screw Compressor, Drilling Rig, etc. The original defendant No.1 the borrower hypothecated the said machinery and its accessories with the plaintiff Bank. At the same time, the defendants No.2 to 6 i.e. present respondents No.2 to 6 agreed to stand as continuing guarantors for the original defendant No.1 in repaym...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay dated 12th February, 1992 in Revision Application No. Ten.A.148 of 1990 whereby the judgment and order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amalner Division, Amalner Division, Amalner dated 1st October, 1990 in Appeal No. TNC/Appeal 6/89 came to be reversed. 2. The back ground facts as disclosed in the writ petition are as under: The suit land is comprised in Gat No. 143 admeasuring 3 Hector and 46 Are, assessed at Rs.4/- and 6 paise situated at village pimpalbnhairav, Parola, District Jalgaon (For short, "suit land"). The petitioner was inducted as tenant on the suit land in the year 1952-53, by the husband of the respondent i.e. deceased Karimoddin. The suit land was previously divided in two survey numbers i.e. Survey No.61/2 admeasuring 4 Acres and 37 gunthas and pot kharab 15 gunthas, total area 3 Acres and 12 gunthas and Survey No. 61/3 admeasuring 3 Acre and 33 gunthas. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
ORAL ORDER:- 1] By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge orders dated 25th June 2010 and 7th June 2011 Annexures N and S to the petition, which orders have been made on an application bearing No.2 of 2010. 2] The petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on business as Transporters and Carriers. The first respondent is a cooperative bank registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 whereas the second and third respondents are the Special Recovery Officer and Sales Officer, so also the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies who have passed the orders impugned in this petition. 3] It is the case of the petitioners that they have filed an application bearing No.2 of 2010 for marking the Recovery Certificate Nos.101/Sangli/1588 of 2002 and No.101/Sangli/1589 of 2002 both dated 13th September 2002 as satisfied and for refund of excess amount to the extent of Rs.2,80,16,156/-. 4] It is the case of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!