Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR584; 2007(4)BomCR830; 2007(6)MhLj127
daga v.c., j.1. this writ petition arising from the order dated 31st august, 2005 in regular civil appeal no. 20 of 2005 passed by the ii ad hoc additional district judge, panji is heard finally by consent of parties at the stage of admission.facts:the facts required to be stated to decide this petition are as under:2. plaintiff had instituted a suit, before civil judge, senior division valued at rs. 38,500/- for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, inter alia, praying for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and for deletion of the entry in occupant's column of the record of rights.3. on being summoned, petitioner appeared and filed written statement, inter-alia, denying the claim of the plaintiff and preferred counter-claim, inter alia, claiming damages to the tune of rs. 90,00,000/- from the plaintiff and for the said purpose valued the counter-claim at rs. 90,00,000/-.4. the trial court after trying the suit and counter-claim on merits by its judgment and order dated 31.12.2004 was pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff as well as the counter-claim of the petitioner.5. respondent no. 1 - original plaintiff in the suit, filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial court before the district court, whilst the petitioner chose to file cross objection under order 41, rule 22 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 ('the code' for short)6. the petitioner, by an application dated 14th july, 2005, inter alia, submitted that as the valuation of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1995(2)BomCR551
r.g. vaidyanatha, j.1. this is a first appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 21-7-1994 in suit no. 2653 of 1989, on the file of city civil court, bombay.2. the learned counsel appearing for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable. i have heard both the counsel on the question of maintainability of the appeal.3. the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit in the trial court under section 6 of the specific relief act for possession of the suit property on the allegation that the defendants dispossessed her from the suit property within 6 months prior to the date of the suit.the defendants contested the suit by filing written statement.after trial the learned trial court dismissed the suit. the trial court recorded a finding that the plaintiff failed to prove her possession and then dispossession within 6 months prior to the date of the suit.being aggrieved with the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has come up with this first appeal.4. the learned counsel for the respondents contended that no appeal is provided against an order under section 6 of the specific relief act, 1963 and, therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that having regard to the provisions of the bombay city civil court act, an appeal lies against every decree passed by the city civil court.the short point for consideration is whether the present appeal against an .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR289
s.m. daud, j.1. an issue of some consequence debated fully before this court, though not raised in the forum below is the subject of this order.2. the appellant-plaintiff has filed a suit in the city civil court (city court) bombay for a declaration and injunction alleging breach of trust by respondents nos. 1 to 3 (defendants nos. 1 to 3) vis-a-vis property known as dhan bhavan and by the induction of respondent no. 4 (defendant no. 4) as a trustee of the bai dhankorabi morarji thakoriji trust (trust). interim reliefs were claimed by way of the appointment of a receiver to take over the trust property and an injunction to restrain defendants from using or dealing with the said property through a motion. the same having been dismissed, plaintiff has come in appeal. the issue under consideration is whether the citfv.y court had jurisdiction to try the suit. if the answer to the issue be in the negative, the order impugned in appeal will naturally not survive.3. plaintiff a co-trustee of defendants nos. 1 to 3 complains of defendant no. 1 with the aid of defendant nos. 2 and 3 misusing her position as a managing trustee. defendant no. 1 has got the plaint defendant no. 2 and 3 to pass a resolution granting a lease of dhan bhavan to herself at the trivial rent of rs. 500/- per month. even that trifling sum was reduced to nothing by a later resolution. plaintiff as a trustee was not a party to either the lease or the no-rent resolutions. in fact defendant no. 1 as a trustee could .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(3)BomCR827; 2007(5)MhLj50
f.i. rebello, j.1. with the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing and heard forthwith.2. a learned judge of this court on 22nd july, 2005 was pleased to pass a judgment against the appellants and in favour of the respondents under order 8, rule 10 of the code of civil procedure. a few facts may be set out which will be necessary for the purpose of considering the appeal. it was the case of the respondents that the appellants under the provisions of the imports and exports (control) act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and the exports (control) order 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the order) granted cash compensatory support to exporters for exporting certain items. one of such item was of de-oiled rice bran which the respondents exported between the period 1st april, 1977 till 31st march, 1978. the exports were subject to certain terms and conditions. the respondents contend that the appellants informed the s.e.a. and through it, its members which included the respondent that cash compensatory support scheme would continue for a period of 3 years ending on 31st march, 1982. the respondents therefore, undertook the programme of long term exports of de-oiled rice bran. they invested in additional equipments apart from other expenses. the appellants had promised that the cash compensatory support scheme on exports of de-oiled rice bran would continue without any reservation for the period from 1st april, 1979 to 31st march, 1982. however by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2003Bom111; 2003(1)ALLMR290; 2003(2)BomCR683; [2003]114CompCas297(Bom); 2003(1)MhLj551
r.s. mohite, j.1.these two appeals which arise from the same summary suit i.e. summary suit no.702/92 can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment and order.2. the brief and relevant facts which give arise to the filing of the aforesaid appeals can be summarised as under:--(a) in february 1996, modiluft limited (hereinafter referred as the 'original defendant') approached leela capital and finance limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'original plaintiff) for grant of an inter corporate deposit in the sum of rs. 5 crores for a period of 90 days with interest .at the rate of 27% per annum. (b) the said loan was granted by the plaintiff to the defendant on 20-2-1996 on terms which were recorded in writing in a letter dated 20-2-1996 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant. the acceptance of the terms by the defendant was given at the foot of this letter itself. in order to secure the deposit, it was contemplated that the defendant would issue post-dated cheques for the interest and principal amount. further, security by way of equity shares of listed companies with 50% margin was provided for in the said terms. the amount of rs. 5 crores was given by the plaintiff to the defendant by a cheque dated 19-2-1996 drawn on state bank of india and its receipt was further evidenced by a receipt executed by the defendant. the defendant also executed a demand promissory note dated 19-2-1996 promising to pay to the plaintiff the principal sum of rs. 5 crores along with .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(2)BomCR530; 2004(1)MhLj532
a. p. shah, j.1. this appeal is directed against an order of the learned single judge, extending the time for the first respondent to file its written statement beyond the period of 90 days, prescribed by order viii, rule 1 of the code of civil procedure, by exercising inherent power under section 148 of the code of civil procedure. the learned single judge extended time by holding that section 148 could be invoked to extend the period prescribed under order viii, rule 1, notwithstanding the proviso to order viii, rule 1, which curtails the power of a court to extend time only up to 90 days. the appeal raises important question involving the scope and interpretation of the provisions of order viii, rule 1 of the civil procedure code as amended by the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 2002 (act 22 of 2002) with effect from 1st july 2002. the more fundamental issue is whether the provisions of order viii, rule 1 would apply to suits on the original side or original side rules continue to prevail by virtue of section 129 of the code of civil procedure.2. the appellant is the original plaintiff. the appellant is a company whose equity is substantially held by the financial institutions, banks, insurance companies and their affiliates. respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. original defendant nos. 1 and 2 are corporations incorporated in usa. the appellant has filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of rs. 960 crores and certain other reliefs. the suit was filed on 16th .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
m.g. gaikwad, j.1. heard learned counsel, appearing for the respective parties.2. by this petition under section 80 of the representation of the people act, 1951, petitioner challenges the election of respondent no. 1 as a member of maharashtra legislative council from jalgaon local authorities constituency, jalgaon.3. the brief details of the election are as follows.[a] election programme declared - 10-11-2004[b] date of filing nominations - 11-11-2004[c] date of polling - 30-11-2004[d] declaration of result - 02-12-2004[e] date of filing of election - 17-01-2005 petition[f] date of filing of affidavit - 19-01-2005 in form no. 25the petitioner was nominated as a candidate put up by nationalist congress party whereas the respondent no. 1 contested the election as an independent candidate. the election being an election from jalgaon local authorities constituency, the members of panchayat samitis, zilla parishads, municipal councils in jalgaon district were the valid voters. there was alliance between indian national congress (i) and nationalist congress party. the petitioner being a candidate put up by nationalist congress party, due to alliance, he was a candidate sponsored by both major political parties. in view of this alliance between the two major parties, the alliance was in majority having regard to the electoral roll. it is alleged that respondent no. 1 was a pakistani national as well as a citizen since partition of british india before acquisition of indian .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR3346; LC2008(3)340
v.m. kanade, j.1. leave under rule 147 of the high court (original side) rules is granted to the plaintiff to take out a notice of motion in terms of draft notice of motion handed in. plaintiffs to get the suit and notice of motion numbered.2. by consent of parties, notice of motion is taken up for hearing. heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and for defendant nos. 1 and 2.3. plaintiff is a company incorporated under the companies act and is carrying on business of trading in various feature films. defendant no. 1 is the producer of feature film titled 'god tusi great ho'. defendant no. 2 is a laboratory which has processed the said film and has custody of the negatives of the said film. defendant no. 3 is a company to whom the defendant no. 1 is alleged to have sold certain rights in the said film.4. brief facts are as under:5. it is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no. 1 assigned broadcasting rights of the said film by an agreement of assignment dated 16/2/2007. in the said agreement, it was provided that the plaintiff would pay to the defendants certain amounts as per the schedule annexed to the said agreement. it is the case of the plaintiff that on execution of the said agreement, an amount of rs 1 crore was paid on 16/2/2007. further sum of rs 2 crores was payable on 10/3/2007, subject to the plaintiff not receiving any claim, objection from any third party after publication of notice in the trade magazines. an amount of rs 50 lakhs was to be paid on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(5)BomCR56
bhosale d.b., j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the following questions of some importance have been raised in these proceedings: when a caveator-defendant dies, whether it is for the plaintiff/petitioner to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased-caveator as defendants in a suit?; and if the plaintiff fails to do so whether the suit and the petition, both abate? and; if it is held to be not mandatory for the plaintiff to do so whether the suit only would stand dismissed as abated or infructuous and in that eventuality the petition for probate would be liable to be allowed as uncontcsted 3. the factual matrix, sans unnecessary details, is as follows:the plaintiff filed a petition for probate of the last will and testament dated 2nd june, 1988 of dr. anant rajaram deshpande. he died at bombay on or about 16.8.1988. the plaintiff is the sole executor named in the will. the defendant- suneel anant deshpande was the son of dr. anant deshpande. after service of a citation, suneel deshpande had filed caveat and objected the grant of probate. the caveator suneel also died at bombay on 3rd january, 2007 leaving the will dated 23rd may, 2003, where-under he appointed his widow meena suneel deshpande and his two daughters, namely, sujata rohit tarkunde and renuka tushar damle, as executors of his will and trustees of his estate. the advocates of the heirs of suneel by their letter dated 5th february, 2007 addressed to the advocates for the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(2)BomCR110
r.j. kochar, j.1. the plaintiffs have prayed for an order and decree against the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of rs. 5,67,68,433.23 as per particulars of claim exh. n to the plaint together with further interest at the rate of 27% per annum on the principal sum of rs. 5 crores from the date of filing of the suit till payment and/or realisation and for costs of the suit.2. on receipt of writ of summons, the defendants entered their appearance to contest the suit. thereafter, the plaintiffs have taken out the present summons for judgment for a decree on the ground that the suit claim is an ascertained and liquidated claim and it arises from a written contract between the parties and that the defendants have no defence of any nature. in support of the summons for judgment an affidavit of shri jayant athavale verifying the facts is filed by the plaintiffs. the defendants have filed affidavit in reply dated 5th march, 1998 of one shri ogale, resisting the summons for judgment and praying for unconditional leave to defend the suit on various grounds. the plaintiffs have filed their rejoinder dated 17th january, 2000. the defendants have filed sur-rejoinder dated 29th january, 2000. thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed an affidavit in further support of summons for judgment dated 3rd october, 2000 and the defendants have filed an affidavit of one shri patankar dated 10th october, 2000 in reply to the affidavit in further support of the summons for judgment.3. i have .....
Tag this Judgment!