Mumbai Court December 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. J.M. Mhatre Infra Private Limited (Through its Director Mr. Vijay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2014
P.D. Kode, J. 1. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for- (aa) issuing a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus calling for records and proceedings from Respondent No.2 regarding decision arrived for re-inviting the Tender in Second Call for the subject work and quash and set aside the same. (bb) directing the Respondents not to take further steps including issuing the fresh tender as decided and conveyed by the Communication dated 27th February, 2014, pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition. 2. Mr. C.G. Gawanekar, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that paragraph 7B of tender notice originally issued on the website of respondent No. 2 for the work the provision of extension and up-gradation of runway with allied operation infrastructure at CGAS, Ratnagiri at the estimated cost of Rs.73 Crores required experience of having successfully completed similar work. The said paragrap...
Milind Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Planning Depar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-08-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the constitutionality of rule 16 (3A) of the Maharashtra District Planning Committee (Election) Rules, 1999 (for short, the Rules of 1999). Consequently, he has also prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Returning Officer (respondent no. 3 herein) on 7th February 2013 whereby he has rejected the nomination of the petitioner for the post of Member in the District Planning Committee of Yavatmal District. Petitioner has also prayed for setting aside order dated 13th February 2013 passed by the Collector, Yavatmal i.e. respondent no. 2 herein whereby he has confirmed the order dated 7th February 2013 passed by respondent no. 3. Respondents no. 4 to 11 are the persons who have been declared elected unopposed on District Planning Committee, Yavatmal. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding present petition are thus Vide Notification dated 28th January 2013, respondent no. 3 had declared the election ...
Aba Shivaji Malme Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. Criminal Appeal No.802 of 2013 has been preferred by original accused no.2 Aba Malme. Criminal Appeal No.265 of 2014 has been preferred by original accused no.1 Netaji Chavan. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Sessions Case No.87 of 2010. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced both of them to R.I. for life and fine of Rs.5000/- in default R.I. for six months. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the appellants will be referred to as they were referred before the trial Court i.e. appellant Netaji Chavan will be referred to as accused no.1 and appellant Aba Malme will be referred to as accused no.2. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: Deceased Dagdu was the son of P.W. 1 Sadashiv and PW. 2 Vimal. They were res...
Bhilaji Bandu Sutar and Lohar Vs. Rangarao Shankar Sutar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2014
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. For the sake of convenience, the nomenclature of the parties as is stated in the suit will be referred to hereinafter as the appellant / original defendant no.2 and respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 / original plaintiff nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and respondent no.5 / original defendant no.1 and respondent no.6 / original defendant no.3. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.3.1992 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Kolhapur in Regular Civil Appeal No.230 of 1986 and cross objections, the defendant no.2 preferred the present Second Appeal. Respondent No.1 original plaintiff filed Cross-Objection. A few facts of the matter are as under: 4. The original plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.55 of 1997 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Malkapur for declaration that defendant no.1, Muktabai Shankar Sutar was not legally wedded wife of Shankar Kondi Sutar. The property was sold by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no...
Mukesh Nanji Gala and Others Vs. M/s. Heritage Enterprises and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2014
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act') the petitioners have prayed for leave to file this petition for raising their objections to the impugned award dated 19th March, 2013 and have prayed that the said award be quashed and set aside. The learned arbitrator is impleaded as respondent no. 2. The petitioner has also prayed that this court shall direct the learned arbitrator to deposit in this court all the records, paper and proceedings of the arbitration between the respondent no. 1 (original claimant) and the society i.e. Apsara Coop. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. By the impugned award the learned arbitrator had declared that the MOU dated 30th April, 2008 executed between M/s. Heritage Enterprises (original claimant in arbitration proceedings and respondent no. 1 herein) and Apsara Coop. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. is valid subsisting, enforceable and binding upon those parties and that the claimant is entitled to speci...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Narmada w/o Chintaman Sap ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appeal is confined only to one point - as to whether the appellant - insurance company needs to be exonerated in the facts of present case, for, all other issues viz., negligence of driver and entitlement of claimants are not in dispute. 2. On 13th March, 1995, one Chintaman Sapkale had been travelling on a two wheeler of Bajaj M-80 make bearing registration No.MH-19/B-3914 from Bhusawal to Jalgaon. A truck bearing registration No.MH-19/2478 driven by original respondent No.1 Shaikh Raheman Shaikh Kasam gave dash to the motorbike and as a result of injuries therefrom said Chintaman Sapkale died. He was 43 year old and had been engaged in variety of works as have been referred to and are not in dispute. The claimants, on account of his loss, had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- on various counts. 3. In the Motor Accident Claims Petition, original respondents No.1 and 2, Shaikh Raheman Shaikh Kasam and owner Shaikh Bashir Shaikh Kalu had not appeare...
Ratilalji Walji Laddha and Another Vs. Pusaram s/o Dashrathlalji Agraw ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-08-2014
R.K. Deshpande, J. 1. In Special Civil Suit No.46 of 2004, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Darwha, has passed a decree on 23-3-2009 holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of contract dated 27-8-2001 at Exhibit 72 and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 10-10-2001 at Exhibit 87. The defendant No.1 is directed to execute the registered sale-deed in respect of the suit property within a period of one month from the date of the order, and the plaintiffs are directed to make the payment of balance sale price of Rs.1,50,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 at the time of registration of the sale-deed. Out of the two defendants, the defendant No.2 Shamji Walji Laddha expired during the pendency of the suit itself and the appellant, who is the original defendant No.1, and real brother of the defendant No.2 was also brought on record as a legal representative, and he has preferred this appeal before this Court. 2. The factual position is as under: (a) Initi...
Deepak Chhabria and Others Vs. M/s. Supreme Indosaigon Associates and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2014
Oral Judgment:1. Rule. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. The above Writ Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India involve a common challenge i.e. the challenge to the order dated 26-9-2014 passed by the Learned Judge of the City Civil Court by which order, the Chamber Summonses filed by the Petitioners herein for directing the Defendant No.1 to file the Written Statements affirmed on 9-1-2007 and the Written Statements dated 26-3-2014 filed in each of the Suits in question, be rejected and returned to the Defendant No.1 is taken exception to by way of the above Petitions.3. Shorn of unnecessary details a few facts can be stated thus:The Petitioners herein are the original Plaintiffs who have filed the Suits in question being Suit Nos.515 of 2006, 517 of 2006 and 553 of 2006, against the Defendants i.e. the Respondents herein for compliance of the obligations of the Respondents under the Maharashtra Owners...
Sadashivrao Mandalik Kagal Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2014
CavJudgment: (Chief Justice) 1. The Petitioner herein is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 running a sugar factory at Sadashivnagar, Hamidwada-Koulage, Taluka Kagal, District Kolhapur. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 2 July 2011 of the Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State for granting the Aerial Distance Certificate under Clause 6-B of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 in favour of Respondent no.5 for the purpose of setting up a new sugar factory between village Dhamane and Village Belewadi Kalamma in Kagal Taluka of Kolhapur District. The Petitioner has also challenged the consequential aerial distance certificate issued by the Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State, in favour of Respondent no.5. On 2 July 2011, Clause 6-A of the above Order of 1966, prohibited any new sugar factory being set up within a radius of 15 kilometers from an existing sugar factory. The distance between the su...
Khare and Tarkunde Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. The State of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-05-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the rejection of its tender at the stage of qualifying to compete in the financial bid. 3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present writ petition are as under:- The respondents/State had invited tender for construction of High Level Bridge at 171/600 on Kahani River MSH-11 Road from State Boarder to Gondia Goregon Sadak Arjuni Gadchiroli Chamorshi Road in Taluka and District Gadchiroli. In response to the said tender, six bidders had submitted their bids. It is the case of the petitioner that though Envelope No.1 was opened on 21.10.2014, the petitioner was not informed about the qualification or disqualification of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that for the first time on 04.11.2014 he received a communication on E-mail informing it, that it was found to be disqu...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »