Mumbai Court January 2014 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.
M/S Heritage Lifestyle and Developers Ltd. Vs. M/S. Cool Breeze Co-ope ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
1. By this Petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Petitioner seeks an injunction restraining the Respondent No.1 from appointing any other builder/Developer to re-develop the property described in prayer (a) of the petition. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The respondent no.1 is a Co-operative Housing Society. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 33 are members of the respondent No.1 society. Respondent nos. 34 is impleaded as party-respondent pursuant to an order dated 9.7.2013 passed by this Court. 3. The respondent no.1 society wanted to re-develop the property described in prayer clause (a) of the Petition. The respondent No.1 is a lessee of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board (MHADA) in respect of the said property. On 12.7.2012 the petitioner submitted a proposal to the first respondent in respect of re-development of the said property. 4. O...
Vallabh Vaman Bhobe Vs. the State, Through the Police Inspector and An ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to challenge the order made by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, North Goa in Criminal Revision Application No.82/2012. The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has made the order on the application filed at Exhibit 9 and has directed to ascertain as to whether the properties mentioned in the application by the petitioner from Revision Application no.82/2012 are present in the sealed premises and to conduct proper inventory accordingly. 4. The petitioner is the father of respondent no.2. There is dispute over a shop premises. It is the case of the petitioner that the property in dispute was taken on rent basis by his father and the petitioner became tenant of the premises after the death of his father which took place in the year 1974. It is the case of the petitioner that he is doing his...
Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of India (Through the Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
M.S. Sanklecha, J. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are challenging demand notices dated 21 April 2011, 2 May 2011, 5 May 2011 and 18 November 2013 for an aggregate amount of Rs.17.51 crores. The above demand is made consequent to finalization of assessment of five Bills of Entry, two dated 29 November 2006 while others are dated 27 October 2007, 7 December 2007 and 16 April, 2008. All the above five bills of entry were finalized by making an endorsement thereon without having given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners or furnishing of reasons which led to modifying the bills of entry as filed by the petitioners. 3) The issues arising for our consideration in the present petition are:- (I) Whether an endorsement made on the bills of entry on finalization of a provisionally assessed bills of entry on a basis different from t...
Prashant and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
N.W. Sambre, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respective parties. 2. In the present petition the petitioners Class IV / Group D employees of aided Ashram School, have prayed for directions to the respondent to grant them higher pay scale after completion of 12 years of service from the date of their initial appointment and to grant all consequential benefits that might have accrued to them. The petitioners have prayed for consideration of above referred claim in the light of Government Resolutions dated 18th September, 2000, 8th June, 1995 and 27th March, 2000. 3. It is the claim of the petitioners that they were appointed sometime in between 1988 to 1997, on the Class-IV posts in various Primary Ashram Schools. It is further submitted by the petitioners that their appointments are approved by the competent authority i.e. respondent No. 3 - Project Officer under the Tribal Development Department. The petiti...
M/S. Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Kamlakant Halarnkar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
Oral Judgment: By order dated 25/10/2013, this Court had directed to issue notice to the respondent indicating that the petition may be heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission. The respondent has been duly served with the notice and since he was absent on 18/12/2013 when the matter was called out, an opportunity was given to him to appear today. However, the respondent is absent. 2. Heard Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 3. By this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04/02/2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court at Panaji ('Trial Court'), in Case No. C-IT/13/2011. 4. The respondent is working as a conductor for the petitioner and having badge No. 5401 and posted at Vasco depot. Industrial Proceedings under No. IT/54/07 were pending before the Trial Court on the issue of legality of withholding of two increments of the respondent on account of irreg...
M/S. Bhavanicotex and Another Vs. M/S. C.A. Galiakotwala and Co. Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
1. By this petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Petitioner challenges the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator appointed under the bye laws of the Cotton Association of India. 2. The petitioner is a propriety firm and is engaged in the business of cotton. The Respondent is purchaser of cotton goods. Sometime, around July 2010, the Respondent approached the Petitioner to supply cotton. The respondent placed two purchase orders on 7 July 2010 and 11 August 2010 for supply of 300 cotton bales in each purchase order. Under the purchase orders, delivery period of cotton bales of first contract was 15 November 2010 to 30 November 2010 and second was 1 December 2010 to 15 December 2010. The purchase order stated that it was subject to the bye laws of the Cotton Association of India, Mumbai, including the provisions for settlement of dispute by arbitration under the said bye laws. The purchase order was signed by both the parties and constituted an agreem...
Rajesh BIn Vs. State, Through Public Prosecutor.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
Smt. R.S. Dalvi, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, read with Section 8 of the Goa Children's Act, 2003. The accused-appellant was known to the victim He was her neighbour. He lived close by. The victim is stated to be partially mentally deficient. The victim girl was a minor. The appellant is stated to have taken the victim to his house, which was close to the house of the victim, for committing the aforesaid offence. The victim was not found in the house, upon which her mother caused search to be made. Her brother went to search for the victim. He banged on the door of the appellant and found the victim. The victim was injured. The victim was crying. The mother was shocked to see that her daughter was injured. She was enraged and shouted for help. She reported the incident to the police. 2. The mother has been examined as Complainant. Her brother is also examined to corroborate what transpired when h...
State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Dharamveer and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) The present criminal confirmation case and two criminal appeals are being heard and decided together. 2) The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: Deceased Dhanshree Ramteke daughter of Alka Ramteke was studying in Dr. Ambedkar College and was also taking tuition. On 14/8/2012, she left for her tuition class at 6.30 p.m. on her moped Dio. She normally used to return home at 8.30 p.m. to 9 p.m. However, on that day, she did not return and as such, her mother made enquiries with her friends on telephone and also informed the said fact to her brother, namely, Rajesh Dahat. The mother and her maternal uncle took search for her in the night of 14/8/2012 and in the morning of 15/9/2012. Since she could not be traced till afternoon, a missing report came to be lodged by Rajesh Dahat, maternal uncle of Dhanshree, at Gittikhadan Police Station. 3) Police Station Officer, Police Station, Gittikhadan received information from the Office of Police Commissioner th...
M/S. B.M. Retailers Private Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. a ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial, Member: [1] This appeal filed by the Appellant/original Complainant takes an exception to an order dated 16/11/2010 passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissing in default the Consumer Complaint No.192 of 2007 (B. M. Retailers Private Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another). [2] Today when the matter is called out, Adv. Sudhan Y. Amare is present on behalf of the Appellant. Adv. Smt. Sneha S. Dwivedi is present on behalf of the Respondent No.1. Learned Counsel for the Appellant placed on the record an affidavit as regards service of notice of this appeal to the Respondent No.2 through paper publication alongwith a copy of newspaper. It is taken on record. Thus, service of notice to the Respondent No.2 is complete. However, Respondent No.2 is absent today. We have heard the learned counsel present before us. [3] Upon hearing both the learned counsel, for reasons mentioned in the memorandum of appeal and to...
Pradip Vs. Krushnrao Jagannath Patil and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. The petitioner is the accused in Regular Criminal Case No. 168/2010, filed by the respondent no.1 herein i.e. the original complainant. The learned Magistrate, on the complaint of the respondent no.1 herein, issued process requiring the petitioner and other accused to appear and answer to the charge of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the order issuing process, the petitioner filed an application for revision before the Court of Sessions. It is not in dispute that, the revision application is pending in the Sessions Court at Jalgaon. Since the challenge in the revision application is to the order issuing process, the petitioner applied for stay of the proceedings before the Magistrate, pending the hearing and final disposal of the revision application. This application was rejected by the...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »