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. B.J. JaIn and Sons Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a venture dealing in business of jewellers and filed this consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service against the opponent/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for not settling the claim payable under the Insurance Policy for loss of silver due to robbery which was destined to be sent through courier. The complainant preferred this consumer complaint claiming amount of Rs.6,77,395/- as compensation with ancillary relief of Rs.1 Lakh for loss of reputation, Rs.5,000/- for expenses incurred, Rs.10,000/- for mental torture and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. The short issue involved in this case is as to whether courier whose services were availed by the complainant for dispatch of silver are Angadia or not as the Insurance Policy availed by the complainant covers transit insurance for transport of silver through Angadia for sum assured of Rs.10 Lakhs. 3. Opponent/Insurance Company vehemently opposed the consumer complaint by filing written...
Anil Devdatta Gaikwad, Working as Postal Assistant, Solapur Vs. the Un ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
1. This is the second round of litigation before this Tribunal after the previous one bearing O.A.No.430/2012 filed by the applicant was disposed of on 03.08.2012 with a direction to the Respondents to consider his pending representation for cancellation of his transfer order. 2. The applicant by this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has challenged the impugned order dated 22.02.2013 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Respondent No.2 rejecting his representation dated 19.06.2012 (Annexure A-7) for ccancellation of the transfer order dated 30.05.2012 (Annexure A-2) by which he was shifted from Head Post Office Solapur to Karajgi Post Office. 3. The facts of the case in nutshell may be stated as under: That the applicant was appointed as the Postal Assistant on 11.01.1988 and since then was serving at Solapur. The Respondent No.3, Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Solapur issued a circlar dated 01.02.2012 (Annexure A-6) for annual general/rotational tran...
Smt. Varsha Vs. Smt. Vandana Kishore Tode
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed on 08/11/2011 in D.W.C.A. No.12/2009 filed under Section 8(4) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, œthe Act, 1923?) by the Commissioner appointed under the Act, 1923 at Chandrapur and also the order passed on 20/9/2012 by the same Commissioner refusing to revise or modify the order dated 08/11/2011. 2. The case under the Act, 1923 arose because of death of Kishore Tode, who was at the time of his death, working as Senior Overman with Western Coal Fields, Sasti, Tahsil Ballarpur, District Chandrapur. It so happened that when he was performing his duty on 04/6/2009, a heap of sand collapsed and he got buried thereunder. He remained buried for a considerable period of time and it was only on 12/6/2009, his body could be recovered. He was, of course, found dead at that time. Since the accidental death occurred during the course of employment, the employer deposited an amount of Rs.3,51,080/- with the Commis...
Rajusingh Chudaman Rathod and Another Vs. Swami Vivekanand Sahakari Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally with the consent of Mr.S.A.Marathe, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.T.Harkare, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5. 2. The appellants herein (Original plaintiffs) had instituted Special Civil Suit No.30 of 2007 in which the applications were filed by defendant nos. 1 to 3 under Order VII, Rule 11d r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that, on the earlier occasion, same plaintiffs had instituted Special Civil Suit No.27 of 2006 and 28 of 2006, in which the plaintiffs had prayed for declaration that the Sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant is illegal, null and void. In those suits, the plaintiffs preferred an application (Exh.38) in order to seek withdrawal of the suits with permission to file fresh suit due to some formal defects in the suit. The trial Court, with whom the Special Civil Suit Nos.27 of 2006 and 28 of 2006 were instituted, was pleased t...
Manikrao Bhadoji Choure and Others Vs. Sanjay Rawalchand Sahani and An ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order passed on 25th September, 2001 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.432 of 1994. 2. The appellants No. 1 to 3 were respectively father, mother and brother of deceased Pramod, an unfortunate victim of an accident, which occurred at about 10.30 a.m. on DhapewadaVadhona road in front of the house of one Bapurao Shrirao. This accident was caused by a motor vehicle, which was a truck bearing registration No. MHG5383 owned by respondent No.1, ensured with respondent No.2 and driven by one Shalikram Shivaji, who is not a party to this appeal. At the relevant time deceased Pramod was returning to his house after attending the school and as he reached the spot of the accident, the said truck, coming from behind, hit deceased Pramod in a forceful manner, with the result the deceased came under one of the wheels of the truck and both of his legs were crushed thereunder. The deceased was hospitalized a...
Ashok Rambhan Gaikwad Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
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.500/- in default of which to under go rigorous imprisonment for three months, by the II Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, by a judgment dated 5 November 2004, in Sessions Case No.69 of 2004, by this Appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus: P.W. 3 P.S.I. Ramesh Bawiskar who on 8 January 2004 was attached to the Panchavati Police Station, recorded the report of the Appellant at Exhibit 16. Since the report of the Appellant is inculpatory in nature, we do not refer to the confessional part of the said report. On the basis of the said report, an offence vide Crime No.9 of 2004 was registered. P.W.3 P.S.I. Bawiskar proceeded to the house of the Appellant and noticed a w...
Shakil Khan YasIn Khan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Misc. Application No.101/2013, whereby he cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule and directed the petitioner to be arrested and taken in custody. The bail that was granted to the petitioner by the learned Magistrate was under clause (a) of the first proviso to subsection (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as œthe Code?), which is popularly termed as œdefault bail?. 3. The petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2013 in the course of investigation into C.R. No. 153/2013 registered at Deopur Police Station with respect to the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with section 34 of IPC. ...
Rajusingh Chudaman Rathod and Another Vs. Swami Vivekanand Sahakari Co ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally with the consent of Mr.S.A.Marathe, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.T.Harkare, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5. 2. The appellants herein (Original plaintiffs) had instituted Special Civil Suit No.30 of 2007 in which the applications were filed by defendant nos. 1 to 3 under Order VII, Rule 11d r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that, on the earlier occasion, same plaintiffs had instituted Special Civil Suit No.27 of 2006 and 28 of 2006, in which the plaintiffs had prayed for declaration that the Sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant is illegal, null and void. In those suits, the plaintiffs preferred an application (Exh.38) in order to seek withdrawal of the suits with permission to file fresh suit due to some formal defects in the suit. The trial Court, with whom the Special Civil Suit Nos.27 of 2006 and 28 of 2006 were instituted, was pleased t...
Pandurang G. Naik Gaunekar and Another Vs. Nilkant Parshuram MaraThe a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service of notice. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 06/11/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 'A' Court, Ponda on an application filed by the petitioners in Regular Civil Suit No. 99/2012/A for condonation of delay in filing the written statement and counterclaim beyond the period of 90 days and to allow the said application dated 17/04/2013 and consequently, to take on record the said written statement and counterclaim. 4. The respondent no. 1 has filed the said Regular Civil Suit, mainly against the petitioners, for declaration; recovery of Rs.11,27,000/-; interest thereon and for damages of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The plaint contains about 55 paragraphs, running in about 24 pages. The time limit for filing Written Statement ended on 0...
Mrs. Sebastiao Fernandes Vs. Chandar Barkelo Fadte and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Talualikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Redkar, learned Counsel for respondents no.1 to 5. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25/09/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Quepem in Regular Civil Suit No.17/2008/A by which the application dated 02/09/2013 filed by the defendants no. 2 and 3 therein i.e. petitioner and respondent no. 7 herein for opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff no. 1 (PW1) was dismissed. 4. The said Regular Civil Suit No.17/2008/A has been filed by respondents no.1 to 5 or declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondents no. 6 and 7. 5. The petitioner and respondent no. 7 have filed their written statement after amendment of the plaint thereby denying the amended paragraph 18-a of the plaint and specifically alleging that they are in possession and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »