Mumbai Goa Court July 2015 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.
Anil Hoble Vs. Kashinath Jairam Shetye and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-01-2015
Oral Order: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Kashinath Shetye, respondent No.1 in person, Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents No.5 and 6 and Shri Aires Rodrigues, intervenor in person. 2. The above petition, inter alia, takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 29th May, 2015 passed by the learned National Green Tribunal, (Western Zone) Bench, Pune “ respondent No.7 in Application No.51/2014. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case in the above writ petition as pointed out by the petitioner, are that the respondents No.1 to 4 filed an application before the respondent No.7 under Section 18(1), read with Sections 14, 15, 16, and 17 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is further the contention of the petitioner that it is the case of the said respondents that the petitioner has done an illegal construction and is running a bar and restaurant therein. The petitio...
The Vaishya Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Represented through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-01-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal the appellant “ complainant is challenging the acquittal of the respondent from the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as to 'the Act'). 2. Brief facts are that the appellant is a Urban Credit Co-operative Society. Sometime in the year 2003 the appellant had advanced a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondent. The said loan was repayable in monthly installments of Rs.4,200/- plus accrued interest. The loan was repayable in total sixty monthly installments. According to the appellant, the respondent defaulted in the matter of repayment of the loan and the account had become a non-performing asset. Further, according to the appellant, the respondent approached the appellant and had issued a cheque dated 13th January, 2007 for Rs.3,78,195/- towards repayment of the loan, which got dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Hence, after issuance of the statutory notice, the appellant filed a comp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›