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.
Somaskandaraja Vasanthan Vs. Union of India Through Intelligence Offic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2014
1. The appellants herein are convicted of the offence punishable under Section 29 read with 8(c) and Section 21(c) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (N.D.P.S.) Act and are sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 Lakh i.d. S.I. for 6 months on each count by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) in Special Case No.88 of 2005 vide Judgment and Order dated 11/12/2009. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order, the appellants herein have preferred the present criminal appeals. 2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of these appeals are as follows : On 30/1/2005 the Officer of Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as NCB) received a secret information that at Room No.201 of Pooja Guest House, Sector-1, Plot No.22/35, Nerul, New Mumbai, Somaskandaraja Vasanthan (accused No.1) alongwith his associates was to deliver Heroin to Shri Lankan Nationals at around 12 noon. He had intimated the said information to the supe...
Essel Infraprojects Limited Vs. Devendra Prakash Mishra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2014
1. By this notice of motion plaintiffs seek temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their servants and agents from further uttering/repeating/writing/publishing/telecasting any programme or news item thereby making defamatory allegations against the plaintiffs or tending to defame or harm the plaintiffs' business and its reputation in any manner whatsoever and also seeks a mandatory order and injunction against defendant no.1 and 2 to remove the Press Release or any other information/messages/articles relating to the plaintiffs and its Non-executive chairman/directors or any other officers of their website or any other Website or media of defendant no.1 and 2 and seeks injunction from displaying the Press release or any defamatory information/message/articles relating to the plaintiffs and their non-executive chairman/directors or any other officers in their website. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this notice of motion are as under: 2. The plaintiffs...
ANS Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jayesh R. Ajmera
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2014
1. The Arbitration Appeal challenges an award passed by the Appellate Bench of the Arbitration Department of Bombay Stock Exchange Limited, Mumbai. By the impugned award, the appellate bench of the arbitral tribunal allowed the Respondent's appeal and set aside an award by the first arbitral tribunal rejecting the Respondent's claim pertaining to removal of debits in the Respondent's Demat account arising out of certain transactions effected on the Exchange. The appellate bench remanded the matter to the lower arbitral tribunal with certain directions pertaining to the evidence required to be led before the lower arbitral tribunal.2. The short facts in the Petitioner's case giving rise to the present case, may be stated as follows:(i)The Respondent along with his wife, one Mrs.Priti Jayesh Ajmera, was a client of the Petitioner, who is a registered stock broker of the Exchange. The Respondent had executed a Member-Client Agreement with the Petitioner, as also a Depository Participant -...
Pant Nagar Mahatma Phule Co-op Hsg. Society Ltd. and Others Vs. Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2014
1. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. They challenge the order dated 10th February, 2012 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court rejecting their plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) Civil Procedure Code ("CPC" for short). 2. The Bombay City Civil Court had, pursuant to the directions given by this Court in the Appeal from Order No.819 of 2011, framed following four preliminary issues under Section 9A CPC:- 1) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit in view of Section 42 of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971? 2) Whether there is bar of jurisdiction under Section 177 of The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 to entertain the suit? 3) Whether the suit is maintainable on account of want of notice under Section 164 of The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960? 4) Whether there is bar for granting reliefs as claimed by the plaintiff in view of the provisions of Section 149 of Maharashtra Regional ...
Girish Vs. Ambadas
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner has raised a grievance on account of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, having been rejected by the impugned order dated 10-07-2014. 3. The petitioner is the original defendant in R.C.S. No. 176 of 2008. Upon the institution of the said suit, the petitioner filed his written statement along with a counter claim on 05-07-2008. Prayers made in the written statement and the counter claim indicate that the petitioner had reserved a right to amend the written statement and the counter claim, in the event a T.I.L.R. is appointed and pursuant to the local inspection carried out by the T.I.L.R., it is revealed that the respondent/ plaintiff has encroached upon the land of the petitioner/ defendant. 4. The respondent/ plaintiff had stated in its plaint that a T.I.L.R. would be required to be appointed for carrying out measurement of...
Kunal Impex Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2014
P.C.:1. Heard the learned Counsel Mr. Jatin Shah for the applicant, the learned Counsel Mr. Sachin Bandkar for respondent No.2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ajay Patil, for the State.2. Perused the order of this Court 4.7.2014 whereby it was directed that the application will be decided finally at the admission stage itself.3. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.1.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazgaon at Sewree, Mumbai in C. C. No.3570/SS/2005. Leave granted.4. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.5. The respondent No.2 Upendra Soni has been acquitted by the trial Court of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in Criminal Case No.3570/SS/2005.6. Respondent No.2 was prosecuted by the appellant M/s.Kunal Impex for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It was the case of appellant before the trial Court th...
Girish Vs. Ambadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner has raised a grievance on account of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, having been rejected by the impugned order dated 10-07-2014. 3. The petitioner is the original defendant in R.C.S. No. 176 of 2008. Upon the institution of the said suit, the petitioner filed his written statement along with a counter claim on 05-07-2008. Prayers made in the written statement and the counter claim indicate that the petitioner had reserved a right to amend the written statement and the counter claim, in the event a T.I.L.R. is appointed and pursuant to the local inspection carried out by the T.I.L.R., it is revealed that the respondent/ plaintiff has encroached upon the land of the petitioner/ defendant. 4. The respondent/ plaintiff had stated in its plaint that a T.I.L.R. would be required to be appointed for carrying out measurement of...
Wadhwa Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Rehman Qureshi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2014
1. By this notice of motion, the plaintiffs seek an order and injunction against the defendant nos. 1 and 3 to 17 from in any manner dealing with or disposing of, alienating or encumbering or creating any third party rights in respect of the suit property or any part thereof described in prayer (a) of the notice of motion and/or parting with possession or inducting any third party in possession in any manner whatsoever and also seeks appointment of court receiver in respect of the said property. 2. The plaintiffs were formerly known as Vinit Estate Private Limited and had filed a suit inter alia praying for a declaration that the Memorandum of Understanding for sale of the suit property described in Ex.A to the plaint dated 23rd March, 2006 executed by and between the plaintiffs and defendant no1. Is valid, subsisting and binding upon defendant nos.1 and 3 to 17 and also seeks specific performance thereof. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this notice of motion are...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›