Mumbai Court August 2013 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.
Ravindra S/O Vinayak Navghare Vs. Maroti S/O Bansi Chavan and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
Oral Judgment: The appeal is against the Judgment and Order dated 9th of October 2006 in Workmen's Compensation Act Case No.8 of 2004 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Akola whereby the compensation was awarded in the sum of Rs.6,68,130/-. 2) Heard submissions at the bar. The appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law as to whether the learned Commissioner was justified in granting the aforesaid sum when the claimants had prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs.4,50,000/-? 3) Late Mr G.M. Chavan, aged about 22 years was a skilled labour, ITI trained in electrical fittings with good academic record and had passed the computer Course. He was only earning member of his family consisting of claimants-dependents. He was taken from Murtijapur to Talawade, Pune by his Employer M/s Sara Industries, a proprietary firm of Shri Ravindra Vinayak Navghare, on promise to pay wages at the rate of Rs.200/- per day (Rs.6000/- per Month). He was forced to work on m...
Mrs. Catrina Fernandes E Gomes Vs. Anand Sudhir and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. R. Gawthankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. V. G. P. Dukle, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22/08/2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Margao, in Claims Petition No.39/2003. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said claim petition. 4. The claimant had filed the said petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (The Act,, for short), claiming total compensation of Rs.3,00,000 lakhs on account of the death of their son, namely, Hanil Ernest Magmel Gomes, in a motor vehicular accident. 5. The case of the claimants, in short, was as follows; On 24/11/2001, at about 4.00p.m., the said Hanil (since deceased) was returning home to Panjorconi Cuncolim from Margao by a Maruti Van bearing no.GA-02/A-4735. The r...
Rajeshwarrao S/O. Vishwanathrao Patil and Others Vs. the State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
A.H. Joshi, J. 1] Jagat Jagruti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, at Chakur is a Trust running educational institutions. Petitioners are trustees of the said trust. 2] Respondent No.3 is the first informant. Respondent No.3 had sent a letter dated 2/2/2013 to the Police Inspector Respondent No.2, by R.P.A.D. It was intended to report commission of an offence by the petitioners herein. However, the envelope containing the report was received back undelivered. Therefore, the respondent No.3 sought direction from the higher authorities. It appears that the police had secured opinion of the advisor/Deputy Director of Prosecution before registering the FIR. Ultimately, based on said report, and the opinion, the Crime No. 63 of 2013 dated 22nd March, 2013 was registered in Chakur Police Station for the offence under Sections 420,468,471,120B of IPC, against various accused named therein, who are present petitioners. 3] The petitioners have moved this court by filing present petition for quashing FI...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Seems Ramdas Telhande and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
Oral Judgment: The appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act) is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 22-08-2011 passed by the Motor accidents claims Tribunal at Wardha in MACP No.70 of 2008, whereby the Tribunal had partly allowed the claim in the sum of Rs 5,21,500/- inclusive of no fault liability together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization of the entire amount. 2) The facts in brief are as under: On 11-12-2007 Late Shri Ramdas Telhande, aged about 35 years was a victim of the motor vehicle accident while he was driving motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-32/K-4088 travelling with one Sadanand Sheshrao Londhe sitting behind him as pillion rider on the Chandrapur-Nagpur Highway. When the motorcycle came near village Rampur, Tahasil Warora, driver of the unknown vehicle in front of the motorcycle had suddenly applied brakes. In the result the motorcycle driven by the deceased Ramdas collided ...
Sau. Jaishree and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
Oral Judgment: Revision is admitted and heard for final disposal. 2. The revision is filed against judgment and order of petition bearing No.E-238/10 which was pending in family Court, Aurangabad. The proceeding was filed u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. by applicants. The family Court has granted relief of monthly maintenance in favour of applicant no.2 Master Harsh but application of applicant no.1 Smt.Jaishree is dismissed. Both sides are heard. 3. This Court has gone through the record of Family Court. Applicant no.1 Jaishree has given admission that her so-called marriage with present respondent no.2 was in Gandharv form. Thus, she admits that there were no rites or ceremonies of the marriage. Respondent no.2 has admitted that Master Harsh was born to Jaishree from him. Due to these circumstances, Family Court has rejected application of Jaishree and had granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- to the son of applicant no.1. 4. Family Court has taken support of observations made by this Cour...
Shivaji Alias Katod Balu Desale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2013
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of which to undergo further RI for 30 days, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, District - Thane, by judgment dated 21/03/2013 in Sessions Case No.120 of 2011, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. This court while hearing Criminal Application No.638 of 2013 filed by the applicant/appellant seeking suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail, directed that the appeal be listed for final hearing by dispensing with the preparation of formal paper book. This court had also directed that the record and proceedings be called for and be made available to the court at the time of final hearing of this appeal. Pursuant to the order passed by us on 24/7/2013, in Criminal Application No.638 of 2013...
intelgaIn Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Western Region ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2013
P.C. (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30/03/2012 passed by Respondent No.1 and, secondly, for an appropriate writ, order and direction, directing Respondents not to charge, levy any fine and or penalty as imposed in the impugned order. 2. Brief facts are as under:- 3. Petitioner is a Private Limited Company duly incorporated under the Provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No.2 is a Company which is registered in California in United States of America and also in India under the name and style of INTELGAIN TECHNOLOGIES Pvt Ltd. Petitioner Company received a legal notice dated 29/9/2010 sent by Respondent No.2, alleging that there was an infringement of their trade mark 'INTEL' by the Petitioner. By the said notice, Petitioner was asked to refrain from using the mark 'INTEL' as a part of their...
Sanjay Fondu Bhandare Vs. Narayan Babuso Palyekar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-21-2013
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 22/03/2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji in Claim Petition No. 92/1999. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said Claim Petition. 3. The claimant had filed the said petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act, for short) for grant of total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident. 4. The case of the claimant, in short, was as follows: On 10/7/1998, at about 6.00 a.m while he was proceeding from Merces towards Panaji on his scooter bearing no. GA-01/A-5740, the respondent no.1 was driving the trax jeep bearing registration number GA-02/C-7098 ahead of the scooter and suddenly the respondent no.1 took a right turn and in that process dashed against the scooter of the claimant thereby causing injuries resul...
State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Home Department and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-21-2013
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. The State of Maharashtra, Home Department, challenged order dated 21.7.1999, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Nagpur, whereby the MAT allowed the original application in favour of the applicants/legal representatives of Satyadeo Awasthi the deceased employee, by passing the following order. Original Application is allowed in the following terms : The respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs.41,803/- towards interest from 9.2.93 onwards with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on this amount of Rs.41,803/- from 9.2.93 till payment is made to the Legal Representatives of the Original Deceased Applicant. The respondents are directed to comply with the said order within a period of three months from the receipt of this order. 2. There is no serious issue with regard to the fact that the respondent employee was exonerated from the charges. It was the reason for not granting the retirement benefits i.e. pension a...
Ramona Garware Vs. Deve Paints Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 3. Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai, issued process under Section 630 of the Companies Act,1956 against the petitioner, same is questioned. 4. Mr.Jaideep Garware was appointed as Vice President of Garware Paints. In the year 1988, he took over possession of the flat suit premises. On December 27, 1989, he was appointed as whole time Director. Petitioner Smt.Ramona married to Jaideep Garware on April 9, 1992. M/s.Garware Paints Ltd. was taken over by M/s.Deve Paints, under Agreement. Later, Mr.Jaideep asserted as tenant of M/s.Garware Paints Ltd in respect of the said flat. On September 25, 1996, M/s.Deve Paints issued a notice to Jaideep Garware to vacate the flat. He filed declaratory R.A.D. Suit no.1771 of 1996. Thereafter, M/s.Deve Paints instituted, on July 11, 1997, the subject complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act. In November,1998 due to personal diff...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »