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.
Suresh Champatrao Chincholkar Vs. Magan Sangrahalaya Samiti
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. In this appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant-original defendant has challenged the decree for possession passed in respect of a stall in the premises owned by the respondent-original plaintiff. The second appeal was admitted by framing the following substantial question of law: Whether the licensee paying license fee would be covered by the term tenant as defined in clause 2(5) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1949 and whether the permission of the Rent Controller would be necessary for evicting such a licensee? 2. During pendency of the second appeal the original plaintiff filed Civil Application No. 825 of 2014 for dismissal of the appeal and for directions to the original defendant to deposit occupation charges. According to the plaintiff after the second appeal was admitted the defendant had stopped paying any amount towards occupation of the suit premises. The defendant has filed his reply opp...
Oriental Insurance Co. Limited and Another Vs. Jaipalsingh and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This first appeal has been preferred by original respondents No.5 and 1 respectively against the common judgment and award dated 07-05-1994 in Motor Accident Claim Petitions No.59 of 1990 and 60 of 1990 rendered by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani, whereunder Jaipalsingh-claimant in motor accident claim petition no.59 of 1990 who is respondent No.1 herein had been awarded compensation of Rs.1,23,000/- applying multiplier of 32. 2. Present appellant No.1 who was respondent No.5 in the claim petition has been held jointly and severally liable along with present appellant No.2-the original respondent no.1 and they have been directed to pay interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. 3. Brief reference to the facts would show the position that on 12-09-1990, respondent No.1 Jaspalsingh had been driving motorcycle bearing no.MFT-1737 which was owned by his brother Rajpalsingh, from Gangakhed to Parli-Vaijnath....
Balaji Vs. State of Maharashtra through its secretary, Revenue and For ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
Oral Judgment: (C.V. Bhadang, J.) 1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.2.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2074/1991. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Amravati in a suo motu revision under Section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 ('Ceiling Act' for short). 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus : That the petitioner was holding certain agricultural lands at village Jawala District Yavatmal in respect of which a return under the Ceiling Act was duly filed. The learned Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal (SLDT) by an order dated 29.11.1985 had determined the surplus land belonging to the family unit of the petitioner as 50.51 acres. It appears that while calculating the same the SLDT excluded an area admeasuring 10.20 g...
Aloki and Others Vs. Gajanan Lahanuji Idre and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
Oral Judgment:1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiffs who are aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate Court allowing the appeal preferred by the original defendants and dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.2. One Lahanu Idre was the common ancestor who was married with one Sitabai. From said wedlock they had three sons, Anandrao (plaintiff No. 1), Pandhari, son of Nathu their second son (plaintiff No. 2) and Gajanan-defendant No. 1. According to plaintiffs, their father was having agricultural land and house property. The ancestral property was partitioned after the death of Lahanu in the year 1957. As per said partition, field Survey Nos. 94/6 and 93/5 (new 482) went to the share of defendant no. 1. Field Survey No. 94/7 (new 485) went to the share of Nathuthe father of plaintiff no.2 and field Survey Nos. 94/3 and 93/3 (new 484) went to the share of plaintiff No. 1. The defendant no.1 sold field Survey No. 482 f...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Barastilal Motilal Gupta (Sahu) and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. By consent of the parties, First Appeal called out forthewith and heard finally. 2. The appeal is against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2007 passed by the MACT, Mumbai in MACT Application No.517 of 1999. The respondents/original claimants are the parents of the deceased Dharmendra Gupta. The deceased was sitting on a handcart in front of his house and was chit chatting on 26.9.1998 at about 11.30pm. At that time, the offending tempo bearing No.MH-04-S-8242 which was going from the road suddenly went off the road and dashed the handcart and Dharmendra sustained injuries leading to his death. The parents thereafter filed the application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation. The application was not contested by opponent No.1, the owner of the vehicle. However, the appellant i.e., the insurer, contested the claim on the ground of negligence and quantum. The original complainant i.e., after entering box, gave oral evidence and also produced ...
Artist Tree Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 16 May 2006 passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act) by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). By the impugned order dated 16 May 2006 the petitioner's application dated 7 April 2002 for condonation of delay in filing Return of Income for the Assessment Year 1997-1998 was rejected, resulting in the claim for refund of Rs.6,34,929/- not being examined on merits. 2. For the Assessment Year 1997-1998, the petitioner, which is engaged in the business of dealing in Artifacts and finances, filed a Return of Income on 14 September 1999, declaring income of Rs.1,46,000/- and claiming refund of Rs.6,34,929/-. The due date for filing the Return of Income was 30 November 1997, but the return was filed on 14 September 1999, i.e., after delay of about 22 months. 3. As there was a delay in filing the Return of Income for Assessment Year 1997-1998 beyond the period specified under Section 139(1) an...
Jitendra Kumar Jain Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
Oral Order: 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st September 2012 delivered by the Special Judge, Silvassa, in Special Case No.1 of 2009, convicting the appellant who was the accused in the said case of offences punishable under sections 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months in respect of the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C. Act'); and to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months in respect of the offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The learned Judge directed that the sub...
Vithal Laxman Shirsath and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
Per Court: 1. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 at length. 2. These are 5 petitioners who have been elected as a members of the Gram Panchayat of village Jalki Bazar, Tq.Sillod, Dist.Aurangabad. There are in all 7 members. The post of Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch has been reserved for the women category. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat, respectively. 3. The petitioners contend that there are certain allegations against the Sarpanch. They have never contended that being a woman Sarpanch, 3/4th majority is required for passing a No Confidence Motion against her and that the petitioners don't have such majority. The petitioners hasten to clarify that they never had any intention to move No Confidence Motion against the Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch. 4. On 02/07/2014, all the petitioners tendered their resignation from their post and submitted the same to responden...
Dattatray Namdev Kalake Vs. Bapu Bhairu Bhivungade and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
Oral Judgment:1. Rule. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. The short question which arises in the above Petition is whether a Court Commissioner is required to be appointed in the Suit in question.3. The Petitioner herein is the original Plaintiff who has filed the Suit in question being Regular Civil Suit No.222 of 2012 for an injunction restraining the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 from disturbing the Plaintiff's possession and further for restraining the Defendants from cutting the 100 years old trees belonging to the Plaintiffs without permission as also injuncting the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 from erasing the boundary marks between Gat Nos.1464 and 1465 which are two lands in contention in the said Suit. The Plaintiff is concerned with land bearing Gat No.1465 and whereas the Defendants are concerned with land bearing Gat No.1464. The said lands adjoin to each other in as much as to the south of Gat No.1465 is the land bearing Gat No.1...
LandT Finance Ltd. Vs. Kajal Kumar Das and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the applicant / award creditor for the deposit of the decretal amount, for ordering particulars of properties, assets and means of the award debtor, for further orders under Order 21 Rule 41 of the CPC upon non-compliance of the order of disclosure, for arrest of the award debtor, for issue of a precept for attaching the properties belonging to the award debtor which are outside this Court's territorial jurisdiction and such other reliefs. 2. The award debtors reside and carry on business in Hooghly, West Bengal. Their properties are in the state of West Bengal. The applicants / award creditor had applied under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) for obtaining certain interim reliefs pending the arbitration in the Court in Calcutta. The amount of loan granted by the award creditor was paid in Mumbai and was repayable in Mumbai. The parties agreed to have their arbitration in Mumbai. The arbitration has been held and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »