Mumbai Court October 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.
Coromandel International Ltd. Vs. M.V. GLORY I and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2014
P.C. 1. The suit is listed today for framing of issues. At the outset, the counsel for the plaintiff stated that the affidavit of documents of the plaintiff is ready and the plaintiff is relying upon some 156 documents. The counsel for the defendants objected to the affidavit of documents being taken on record. Relying on Order VII Rule 14 and Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity referred as 'CPC') he submitted that the question of the plaintiff filing any affidavit of documents itself does not arise as no application for discovery has been taken out by the defendants. The counsel further submitted that the plaint refers to about 21 documents and only those 21 documents can be accepted and nothing more than that. He stated that the plaintiff cannot rely on any document that is not annexed to the plaint. He submitted that as provided in the CPC all documents relied upon by the plaintiff have to be annexed to the plaint with a copy, together with a list thereof. ...
Dinesh Wamanrao Dhawale and Others Vs. Collector, Amravati and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2014
Oral Judgment: P.R. Bora, J. 1. The order dated 23.12.1996 passed by the Collector, Amravati i.e. respondent no.1 herein and the orders passed consequent thereto i.e the order dated 27.12.1996 passed by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Chandur Bazar i.e. respondent no.2 herein and the order dated 22.04.1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division i.e respondent no.3 herein are questioned in the present Writ Petition. 2. The facts which are relevant for deciding the present petition can be stated thus : The Municipal Council, Chandur Bazar i.e. respondent no.2 published an advertisement thereby inviting the applications for filling in the posts of Coolie, Chowkidar and Chaprasi (Peon). Two such advertisements were published. One was for the post to be filled in the Municipal Council whereas other was for the post to be filled in the School run by the Municipal Council. The petitioners applied for the respective posts. They were interviewed by the Selection Committe...
Harish Loyalka and Another Vs. Dilip Nevatia and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2014
PC: 1. I am informed that the mater is proceeding before the Commissioner. 2. Dr. Saraf, learned Counsel for Defendant No.5, seeks a clarification that it will not be necessary for the Plaintiffs or the 5th Defendant to put their case to the 1st Defendant, who is the witness under cross-examination, and, specifically, that should they not do so, so adverse inference should be drawn against them, nor should it be seen as any sort of admission. 3. This is a question that arises repeatedly. Almost without exception, in every single trial, attempts are made to put a series of questions to a witness suggesting that every paragraph and every line of his pleading or evidence affidavit is false or untrue. The answer elicited is always a denial. I believe this practice is the result of an apprehension that should such questions not be put to the witness, the party who is cross-examining the witness may be deemed to have accepted the witnesss testimony. 4. This apprehension is not only unfounded...
Kalpana Vs. The Director, Maharashtra State Examination Board, Pune-1 ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2014
Oral Judgment: B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Order passed by respondent no. 1 withdrawing Diploma in Education given to petitioner, has been questioned in present writ petition. This Court issued notice on 24th December 1997 and granted adinterim relief staying that order dated 6th October 1997. While admitting the matter, after hearing all concerned, adinterim relief was confirmed. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner appeared for 1st Year D. Ed. Examination in April 1988 in all subjects. When she was attempting subject of Marathi language, she was questioned alleging recovery of a piece of paper from floor near her chair in the examination hall. Petitioner replied then that it was not belonging to her. She was, therefore, permitted to solve the question paper. Thereafter, Principal of her college took her to the office of respondent no. 1 where she was orally asked about the very same chit found near her chair. She again orally ...
Lokhandwala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhobhighat Compound Rahiwasi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2014
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiff for appointment of Court receiver and interim injunction against the Defendants restraining them from acting upon or giving effect to the development agreement entered into between Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Defendant No. 26. The Plaintiff, who is a developer and who claims to have entered into a development agreement with Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Defendant Nos. 7 to 25 for development of the suit property, has filed the present suit for specific performance of that development agreement. The Defendants objected to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the suit in view of the provisions of Section 42 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. Accordingly, a preliminary issue of jurisdiction was framed by this Court. That issue is being decided by this order. The short facts of the Plaintiff's case, relevant for the determination of the present controversy, may be noted as follows: 2. The ...
Sonya Chikhalikar and Another Vs. Anita Fernandes and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2014
Oral Order: 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the defendants for vacating and setting aside the adinterim and interim orders dated 8th October, 2001 and 6th November, 2003. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are sisters being children of one Edna Sequeira (Edna). The plaintiffs sued for an injunction restraining the defendants from selling, alienating, encumbering and creating third party rights in the suit property being Sun Rise Cottage, a bungalow in which Edna resided until her death and for revocation of Deed of Gift executed by Edna in favour of defendant No.2. 2. Since the Gift Deed was challenged, it was looked into by the Court whilst passing the aforesaid orders. The Gift Deed was seen not to have been registered until the filing of the suit. The Gift Deed is document compulsorily registrable. It was observed that the Gift Deed was lodged for registration but was never registered. The Court also observed that what was registered was Deed of Confirmation to which donor w...
Pandharinath Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2014
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No.109/1999 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. In the case filed against the appellant for offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C., the appellant is convicted and sentenced by the Trial court for offence punishable under section 304(I) of I.P.C. He is sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- is imposed on him. Both the sides are heard. 2. It is the case of State that on the night between 25.3.1999 and 26.3.1999 when a lady by name Smt. Kantabai, who was aged about 40 years at the relevant time, was sleeping in the courtyard of her house, deceased Pradeep came there. It was 11.30 p.m. Pradeep tried to establish illicit relations with the lady and on that night, he wanted to have sex with her. Kantabai was deserted by her husband and she was living with her daughter in the said house. Accused/appellant was sleeping inside of the house of Smt. Kantabai at the r...
Kishor K. Mehta Vs. Chetan P. Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2014
P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Dani, and Mr. Aney, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.10.2014 passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner below application at Ex.135 in Change Report No.403 of 2006. By the said order, petitioner's application at Ex.135 came to be rejected. 3. The Change Report No.403 of 2006 was initially filed in the year 2006 by one Vijay Mehta. After the death of said Vijay Mehta, present respondent is substituted in place of deceased Vijay Mehta in the year 2010. The said Change Report is filed contending that the petitioner has ceased to be the trustee of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. The said Change Report is pending before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. 4. By the order dated 21.5.2014 passed in Contempt Petition [C] No.193 of 2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed an interim Board of Trustees comprisi...
Ajay Wadhwa and Another Vs. Symphony Co-operative Housing Society Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2014
1. By this Notice of Motion filed by defendant no.9 it is prayed that this court be pleased to frame preliminary issue of jurisdiction under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and adjudicate upon the same first in point of time and also seeks stay of all civil proceedings in the suit till disposal of this Notice of Motion. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this Notice of Motion are as under :- 2. The defendant no.9 is one of the member of the defendant no.1 society. Defendant no.1 society had passed a resolution for inviting offers in order to redevelop the suit property on 12th June, 2011. The society ultimately entered into a development agreement with the plaintiff on 23rd June, 2012. 3. Clause 24 of the said development agreement provides for arbitration agreement which is extracted as under :- 24.1 Any dispute, controversy, claim or disagreement of any kind whatsoever between or among the Parties in connection with or arising out of this Agreement...
Infoquest Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2014
1. The Petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1946. It states that it has its registered office in a zone which is entitled as Santacruz Electronic Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ). The Respondents are the Authorities who have to develop and maintain such zones so as to promote setting up of industries and consequently the industrial growth in the State and the Nation as a whole. This is a case where a litigant approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and without satisfying essential prerequisites for invoking that jurisdiction, namely a legal or a constitutional right prays that some inaction of an authority called the Development Commissioner, second Respondent to the Writ Petition should visit him with a direction from this Court to consider the Petitioners request so as to allow them to continue and utilize Unit No. 101, SDF -IV, SEEPZ, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 096. 2. In the present case on the own s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »