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.
Subray Narayan Prabhu Dessai and Another Vs. Government of Goa, Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
The appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree of Special Civil Suit No.66/1997/(old) which was pending in the Court Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem. The suit filed by the appellant was for declaration of his title in respect of agricultural lands, to give survey numbers to the suit property, for setting aside the record of the revenue survey made in favour of the respondent and for relief of injunction is dismissed by the trial court. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows: The suit was filed in respect of the area of 2,02,000 square metres from survey no.62/0 and survey no.65/1 situated in village Rivona, South Goa. It is the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that agricultural land which was known as œ Predio Rustico Demominado Borodo Poiquim Pandouaglle or Pandousoddo? and which was registered in the office of Registrar of Sanguem at serial no.25813 from village Rivona, South Goa was owned by...
Kalyan Vs. Adv. Tillottama Chudaman Patil and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
P.C.: 1. Heard Mrs. S.B. Warma, the learned Counsel holding for Mr. B.R. Warma, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Heard Mr. P.P. More, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.2. 2. The petitioners are the accused in Summary Criminal Case No. 346/2011, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Amalner. The case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no.1 herein and in respect of offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioners have approached this Court, invoking its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying that by a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, the order dated 21-12-2013, passed by the learned Magistrate, rejecting the application (Exhibit 85) made by the petitioners, for recording their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [For short, "the Code"], afresh, be quashed and set aside, and that the l...
Maxx Moblink Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pickle Advertisement Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By this Arbitration Petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the Petitioner challenges an Award of the sole Arbitrator dated 03 July 2012, 2. The Petitioner is a private limited company in the business of marketing and trading of mobile phones with related accessories, and customer services. The Respondent is also a private limited company engaged in the business of advertising and consulting for promoting and advertising products. 3. On 10 August 2009 an agreement came to be executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent. It was styled as Company / Agency Agreement. The Petitioner appointed the Respondent as an agency of its advertising consultant for its brand: œMaxx Moblink Communication Ltd.?. The agreement was to come into effect on 10 August 2009. It was to remain operative unless and until terminated. The Respondent was to provide service as an advertising agency for promotion of Petitioner's brand, more particularly, ma...
Adarsh Estate Sahakari Griha and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. By these petitions which are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the High Power Committee dated 7th February, 2009 in Misc. Application No. 316 of 2008 filed by Respondent No. 5 and also the subsequent order dated 5th March, 2012 passed by Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short œCEO, SRA?). 2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding both the petitions are that Respondent No. 5 is a Society of slum dwellers and the Petitioners in both the petitions also are the Society of slum dwellers. Respondent No. 5 had submitted a proposal for slum rehabilitation scheme in respect of plot of lands bearing CTS Nos. 585, 595, 596, 601, 602, 604 and 605, situated at Hindustan Naka, M. G. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400067 to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The said plots were owned by the Municipal Corporation. On 20.6.2...
Sahebrao Lukdu Jadhav and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2014
Oral Judgment: [P.V. Hardas, J.] 1. The Appellant - Sahebrao Lukdu Jadhav (Original Accused No.2), who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of the payment to undergo simple imprisonment of one year, by Additional Sessions Judge-1, Malegaon by judgment dated 31 August 2008, in Sessions Case No.143 of 2006, challenges his conviction and sentence. 2 It appears that the original accused no.1-Kishor Sahebrao Jadhav was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 177 of IPC and was sentenced to SI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He has not filed any appeal challenging his conviction and sentence as both the accused were in jail since 20.9.2005 and accused no.1- Kishor had undergone the sentence passed by the Trial Court. 3. The facts, as are necessary for the...
Harinarayan Bajaj Vs. M/S Sheth Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2014
By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner has impugned the award dated 28th May 2003 passed by the learned arbitrators allowing the claims made by the respondents and rejecting the counterclaim filed by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under : 2. (a) Respondent No.1 was a trading member of respondent No.2 NSE of India Ltd. The petitioner was constituent of respondent No.1 at the relevant time. The petitioner became constituent of respondent No.1 sometime in August 2000. The petitioner trading in shares and used to receive payments and/or delivery of shares. It is the case of respondent No.1 that the petitioner had placed orders for purchase of shares of Amaraja Battery Ltd. in settlement number 10 and issued cheques for Rs.19 lakhs and Rs.35 lakhs towards margin for purchase of shares on 12th March 2001 on NSE and BSE. On the basis of the orders placed by the petitioner, r...
Bhukant Prabhu Vs. Ajay Guno Kerkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-18-2014
Oral Judgment: The appeal is filed against judgment and award of Claim Petition No.318/2003 which was pending before the MACT, South Goa, Margao. The petition filed by appellant is dismissed by the Tribunal. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows: The claimant is a transporter. On 25/04/2003, the claimant collected 12,000 kilo litres of diesel from Hindustan Petroleum Ltd. in the truck standing in the name of his wife and it was to be delivered at Gokak, Karnataka. The number of the truck was GA-02-T-8138. The accident took place at a place known as Durginim Mollem situated at NH-4A within jurisdiction of Mollem Police Station, Sanguem Taluka at about 14.40 hrs. It is the case of the claimant that truck bearing no.GA-01-W-6099 gave dash to the truck tanker of the claimant and the accident was caused by the driver of the truck bearing no.GA-01-W-6099 by driving the truck rashly and negligently. It is contended t...
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Bhupen Champaklal Dalal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2014
Roshan?Dalvi, J. (The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992) 1. The prosecution case against the accused is under 17 distinct and separate transactions albeit of similar nature. Accused Nos. 1 and 13 are the brokers involved in the transactions. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 are the recipient and beneficiaries of the transactions. The other brokers involved in the transactions are accused Nos.4, 5, 10 (since deceased) and 14 (since deceased). The other accused involved in the transactions are employees of accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 13 besides the employees of the Bombay Mercantile Bank Ltd. (BMC Bank). The bank employees have been discharged or dead. 2. The prosecution has sought to show the transactions of monies of BMC Bank which was sought to be invested by BMC Bank in Government of India (GOI) securities with Bank of India (BOI). These monies have instead of BOI been diverted into the accounts of accused Nos.2 and 4 under the transactions shown to ...
Bhawarlal Shankarlal Sarda and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-18-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. As both writ petitions involve similar questions and seek identical reliefs, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. 2. This Court, on 18.9.2012, had issued notice for final disposal. Accordingly, we have heard Shri J. T. Gilda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, Smt. B. H. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 4, Shri V. G. Wankhede, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Shri M. G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel with Shri V. V. Bhangde for respondent No.3, Shri A. V. Khare, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Shri Atul Pande, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7. 3. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 4. The facts giving rise to the present petitions are as follows:- 5. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.4492/2012 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4493/2012 are brothers. While the petition...
Harinarayan Bajaj Vs. M/S Sheth Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-2014
By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner has impugned the award dated 28th May 2003 passed by the learned arbitrators allowing the claims made by the respondents and rejecting the counterclaim filed by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under : 2. (a) Respondent No.1 was a trading member of respondent No.2 NSE of India Ltd. The petitioner was constituent of respondent No.1 at the relevant time. The petitioner became constituent of respondent No.1 sometime in August 2000. The petitioner trading in shares and used to receive payments and/or delivery of shares. It is the case of respondent No.1 that the petitioner had placed orders for purchase of shares of Amaraja Battery Ltd. in settlement number 10 and issued cheques for Rs.19 lakhs and Rs.35 lakhs towards margin for purchase of shares on 12th March 2001 on NSE and BSE. On the basis of the orders placed by the petitioner, r...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »