All First Appeal

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2008 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.1 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr.A.R.Patil, A.G.P. for the applicant CORAM : K. K. TATED, J DATE : AUGUST 14, 2019 P.C.: . Heard. 2 By this Civil Application, Applicant is seeking stay of the operation and implementation of the judgment and award dated 19.12.2011 passed by Reference Court in L.A.R.No.295 of 2003 holding that Respondent original Claimants are entitled sum of Rs.1,49,085/- by way of additional compensation in respect of acquired land. 3 The learned A.G.P. submits that in the present proceedings, Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 16.7.1998 for acquiring Respondent's land admeasuring 0H. 39R. land from Gut no.52 situated at village Sheri Digar, Taluka Kalwan, District Nashik for the purpose of construction of Sule Unai Submergence Project. 4 The learned A.G.P. submits that after following due process of law, Special Land Acquisition Officer declared award under section 11 of the said Act dated 15.11.2000 holding that Respondent original Claimants are entitled compensation in respect of acquired land @ Rs.27,197/- per Hector. 5 The learned A.G.P. submits that, being aggrieved by the said award, Respondent original Claimant preferred reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said Reference, Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land @ Rs.2,50,000/- per Hector and also claimed Rs.2.0 lac towards compensation of Mango and Jambhul trees. He submits that Reference Court without considering the evidence on record, particularly sale instance, held that Claimants are entitled additional compensation of Rs.1,49,085/-. 6 The learned A.G.P. submits that they have good chance of success in the present proceeding. He submits that if entire compensation is recovered by Respondent original Claimant by filing execution Application, then nothing will survive in the present proceeding. He submits that pending the hearing and final disposal of the First Appeal, this Hon'ble court be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and award. 7 Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Applicant and the impugned judgment and award passed by Reference Court holding that Claimants are entitled additional compensation of Rs.1,49,085/- I am satisfied that the Applicant has made out a case for allowing the Civil Application, but they have to deposit entire awarded amount with interest in the Reference Court on or before 19.10.2019 failing which the Civil Application shall stand dismissed without referring back to the court. Hence, following order is passed: a. Operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and award dated 19.12.2011 passed by Reference Court in LAR No. 295 of 2003 is stayed till the hearing and final disposal of the First Appeal, on condition that Applicant to deposit entire awarded amount with interest in the Reference Court on or before 19.10.2019, failing which Civil Applications shall stand dismissed without referring back to the court. b. Reference court is directed to invest the said amount in fixed deposit of any nationalized bank initially for a period of one year and same be continued till further orders. c. Liberty granted to the Respondents/Claimants to prefer an appropriate Application for withdrawal of amount, if they so desire, which will be decided on its own merits. d. Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. e. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.685 OF 2006 Smt. Shubhangi wd/o. Ramkisan Cheulkar .. Appellant versus The Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay .. Respondent Mr.V.V. Mishra for appellant Mrs. Geeta Joglekar for respondent CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED :5th October, 2006. P.C:- ... Heard counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd March, 2006 passed by the City Civil Court dismissing the appellant's Notice of Motion No.4308 of 1999 for injunction against demolition of his unauthorised structure on the road. The respondent municipal corporation issued a notice on 17th February, 1997 to the appellant under Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'the Act'). The appellant did not reply the said notice nor showed cause that the structure was authorised or was not constructed on the public street, but straightway filed suit bearing L.C. Suit No.5256 of 1999 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai for injunction. In the said Suit he took out a Notice of Motion No.4308 of 1999 for an injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing his stall. After carefuly considering the material adduced before it, the City Civil Court came to the conclusion that the stall was on the public road and not in the tenanted premises as alleged by the appellant. In view of this the trial court dismissed the Motion. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any material which shows that the stall was constructed not on the public street but on private property and that he was tenant of anybody. In the circumstances the findings that the stall was on a public street, is a finding of fact which apparently is a proper finding. In view of this appellant is not entitled for any injunction. No error is found in the findings of the trial court. Appeal is dismissed summarily. ( D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.502 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Ms.Poonam Mital Advocate for Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM: A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 23rd September 2013. P.C. : Stand over to 30.9.2013. ( A.P. BHANGALE, J. )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO. 502 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4634 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 502 OF 2013 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .. APPELLANT VERSUS SANJAY GANPATI LOHAR & ANR... RESPONDENTS Ms. Poonam Mital, Advocate for the appellant CORAM:-A. P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 30/9/2013 P.C. Heard. 2 According to learned advocate for the appellant, main insurance policy is not operative as cheque issued towards payment of premium was dishonoured and insurance policy could not come in operation. The insurer would not be liable to pay compensation to the claimant. However, it is FA502.13 submitted that the amount of award is already deposited with the tribunal. That being so, considering the impugned judgment and award, the tribunal can execute the award provided that, if amount is allowed to be withdrawn by the claimants along with interest as ordered, the security to the satisfaction of the tribunal be insisted upon until insurer (appellant) can move the tribunal with the application to disown the liability to pay compensation, on the ground that policy was not subsisting on the date of the award or at the time of the accident. 3 Liberty, accordingly for the appellant to move the tribunal. However, in my opinion, when third party is a victim of motor vehicle accident, the contention that insurance policy was cancelled prior to the date of accident as a result of dishonour of cheque issued towards premium, would not be an excuse for not to pay the award amount. Of course considering the fact that insurance policy is a contract between the insurer 2/4 2 and the insured (policy holder) and third party is not concerned with the fact of payment of premium but concerned with compensation awarded, the victim of the accident (third party) is entitled to receive the amount awarded as compensation and insurer is surely liable to pay. The insurer is entitled to move the tribunal as against the owner of the offending vehicle to recover the amount, if according to it the amount was wrongly paid as compensation to the third party. 4 Ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Reshmi & Ors., 2012 ACJ 920 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema Malhotra & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 151 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha Devi & Ors., 2013 ACJ 1686 are brought to my notice. In view of the observations made, in my opinion, since the amount of award is already deposited with the tribunal, the victim of the accident, which is third party, is entitled to receive the same while the insurer can recover the amount, if compensation was paid wrongly to the 3 claimants and was recoverable from the owner of the offending motor vehicle. According to ruling, the insurer or owner of the motor vehicle is liable either jointly or severally to pay compensation to the third party i.e. the claimants (dependents of the victim of the accident). The order accordingly must be passed with liberty to the insurer to move the Tribunal in case it wants to recover compensation paid from owner of the offending Motor vehicle in the same proceedings of the execution of award and need not adopt any independent suit or proceedings to recover the run paid from owner of the offending Motor vehicle. 4 5 The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (A.P. BHANGALE, J.) md.saleem

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.788/05 Ajit... Khanderao Deshpande Appellant. Versus Smt. Nalini Khanderao Deshpande Mr.A.L. Kumar for appellant. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & S.R.SATHE,JJ. DATE : 4/7/05. PC: 1.Notice before admission. Notice Returnable in six weeks. (S.R.SATHE) (S.B.MHASE) &... Ors Respdts.

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL No.788 OF 2005 Office notes, : office memoranda : of coram, : appearances, : Court's orders : Court's or Judge's directions & : order Registrar's : orders : Ms. Deepti Mistry , Advocate for the appellant. CORAM: J. N. PATEL, AND A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : JULY 30, 2007. P.C.: The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that this being a family dispute, it has been settled out of Court, and therefore the appellant be permitted to withdraw the appeal. The statement is accepted. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the appeal. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 2.The appellant is entitled for refund of Court Fees, as per Bombay Court Fees Act & Rules. Sd/- [ A. A. SAYED, J.] [ J. N. PATEL, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2432 OF 2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2435 OF 2012 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 14663 OF 2012 New India Assurance Co Ltd .. Applicant Vs Dinesh Bhikuram Jaiswal & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Ramesh K. Cheulkar for the Applicant CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 25th JULY, 2012. P.C.: Issue notice to the Respondents returnable on 29th August, 2012. There will be ad-interim stay of execution and operation of the impugned judgment and award subject to condition of the Applicant depositing the entire compensation amount with the Tribunal within a period of five weeks from today. If the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, ad-interim stay will stand vacated without further reference to the Court. [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ] jfoanz vkacsjdj

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2432/2012 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.14663/2012 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. R. K. Cheulkar for the applicant. Mr. T. J. Mendon for respondent No.1. CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 P.C.: The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application for restoration of appeal against respondent No.2 is ready and he will file the same in the Registry on or before 03/10/2013. S.O. to 04/10/2013. JUDGE

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE – CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2432 OF 2012 IN FIRST APPEAL [STAMP] NO.14663 OF 2012 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .... Applicant Vs. Dinesh Bhikuram Jaiswal & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. Ramesh K. Cheulkar for the Applicant. Mr. T.J. Mendon for Respondent No.1. CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATED: APRIL 16, 2014 P.C: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to take out appropriate application for substituted service on respondent No.2. Same is granted. The applicant to take out appropriate application for substituted service on respondent No.2 on or before 20-6-2014, failing which the civil application shall stand S.O. to 20-6-2014. (K.K. TATED, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 194 OF 2008 Vinay Prahaladrai Poddar ... Appellant versus Mrs. Rachana Vinay Poddar ...Respondent Mr. V.S. Kapse for the appellant. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATE: OCTOBER 21, 2008 . P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks some time for depositing cost imposed by this Court as per the order dated 23 rd September, 2008. The amount of cost to be deposited before the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority be deposited on or before 24 th October, 2008. Adjourned to 12 th November, 2008. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.

Order - Status 15: pmw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.194 OF 2008 Mr. Vinay Prahaladrai Poddar … Appellant V/s. Mrs. Rachana Vinay Poddar … Respondent Mr. V.S. Kapse, for the Appellant. Mr. Harish R. Pawar, for Respondent. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 15th APRIL, 2014 P.C. . The Consent Terms duly signed by the Appellant and the Respondent and their respective Advocates are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. The Appellant and Respondent are personally present. Through their respective counsel they state that they have carefully read the terms and conditions incorporated in the Consent Terms and they accept the correctness thereof. The Appellant has handed over to the Respondent, a Banker's cheque in the sum of Rs.8 lakhs in terms of clause 3 of the Consent Terms. By accepting the undertakings in the Consent Terms, we dispose of the Appeal in terms of Consent Terms. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER (i) The undertakings in the Consent Terms marked "X" for identification are accepted; (ii) The impugned Judgment and Decree dated 17th December, 2007 in Petition No.A811 of 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside and the said Petition No.A818 of 2007 is restored; (iii) By consent, the said Petition is converted into a Petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Amendment shall relate back to the date of the institution of the said Petition; (iv) The parties have agreed that reconciliation is not possible and in view of the differences between them, the dissolution for the marriage is the only solution; (v) Accordingly in Petition No.A818 of 2007, there shall be decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage solemnised between the Appellant and Respondent dated 13th February, 2001 is hereby dissolved by the decree of divorce; (vi) The Appeal is disposed of on above terms and in terms of the Consent Terms. There will be no order as to costs. (A.A. SAYED, J ) (A.S.OKA, J )