Mumbai Court December 2014 Judgments
Pandurang Tukaram Kamble Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. Heard submissions at the bar. Perused copies of documents including affidavits relied upon by the parties. 2. By Writ Petition No. 1834 of 1996, the Petitioner prayed that respondents No. 1 and 2 be directed to allot and hand over the piece of land ad measuring 2.5 Acres out of Survey Nos. 357 and 376 situated at Chembur, Mumbai. It must be noted that this writ Petition was disposed of earlier by an order dated 05-11-1996 by a Single Judge of this Court. The order was challenged in Appeal No. 757 of 1997 decided on 09-02-2004 by Division Bench of this Court, whereby it was restored for hearing and disposal afresh in accordance with law. 3. The Petitioner claimed as the Chief Promoter of the proposed Co-operative Housing Society Sarnath Magasvargiya Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha. He claimed allotment of the plot of land from the respondent - State of Maharashtra on the ground that his application was bypassed and the application by the respondent No. 3 Society was c...
Tag this Judgment!Farhan Nasir Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
P.C. V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Interesting question falls for consideration in these three Writ Petitions viz "whether it is necessary to pass a separate order in writing by the Executive Magistrate under section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before issuing a show cause notice under section 111, asking the person to show cause why action should not be taken against him under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?" 2. The facts in all these Petitions are more or less identical. In Writ Petition No.1218 of 2014, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner under section 111 of the Cr.P.C. as to why he should not be asked to execute the bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- after initiating proceedings under section 110(e)(g) of the Cr.P.C. In Writ Petition No.1219 of 2014, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner under section 111 of the Cr.P.C., asking him to show cause as to why action under section 107 of the Cr.P.C. should not be taken against him and in Writ Petition N...
Tag this Judgment!Park View Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. The issue that arises for consideration in this application for review is whether failure to formulate a substantial question of law while deciding the second appeal and reversing the decree as passed can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record or whether the same is merely an erroneous decision that can only be corrected in appeal. 3. The facts that are relevant for adjudication of the present application are that the applicants are the respondents in Second Appeal No.110/2011. In aforesaid appeal, the judgment dated 18-2-2008 passed by the first appellate Court was under challenge. By order dated 8-4-2014, the second appeal was decided by holding that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court erred in holding that the suit filed by the present applicants original plaintiffs was not maintainable. The second appeal was accordingly allowed and said suit was dismissed as infructuous. Aforesaid order dated 8-4-2014 is thus sought t...
Tag this Judgment!Trevor Joseph Harald D'Silva and Another Vs. A.A Farms and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
1. The suit was initially filed in 1992 against defendant Nos.1 to 3. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 have been added as party defendants in 2008. 2. This Court passed an order of appointment of Court Receiver on 24th March, 2009 upon seeing that the defendant Nos.4 and 5 have no right in respect of the suit property. Defendant No.5 was appointed agent of the court receiver and had to pay royalty as determined by the court receiver. 3. Court Receiver sought valuation of the suit property to determine the royalty. The valuation report was filed on 8th June, 2009. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 filed objections to the valuation report on 11th August, 2009. The Court Receiver passed the order of payment of royalty pending the suit on 19th January, 2010 after obtaining the valuation report. The defendants have challenged that valuation and consequently the payment to be made to the Court Receiver. 4. The suit property is stated to be agricultural land. It has 800 mango trees. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 claim as l...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Diggikar and Others Vs. Balaji and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
N.W. Sambre, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent, the matter is heard finally. 2. By the instant Criminal Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants/accused seek quashing of proceedings of S.C.C. No.245 of 2008, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palam, District Parbhani, for offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as under:- A statutory Corporation of the State Government, namely, Maharashtra Energy Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as the "MEDA", for the sake of brevity) was formed with an intention to canvass the cause of conservation of energy. Among the various activities undertaken by the MEDA, one of the activities was of installation of chulhas in various villages and as such entered into business with respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant", for the sake of brevity) for s...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Rajmoti Petroleum Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the said Arbitration Act') the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 27th July, 2011 made by the learned arbitrator directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.56,87,400/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum w.e.f 20th June, 2001 till the date of realisation to the respondent herein. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2. The petitioner was original respondent in the arbitration proceedings whereas the respondent was the original claimant. By an agreement dated 11th December, 1997 the respondent appointed the petitioner as Dealer Operated Lube Depot Operator at Diu for the period of two years from October, 1997. The said agreement was thereafter extended till 31st March, 2000 on the terms and conditions contained in agreement dated 11th December, 1997. 3. Under clause 8 of the said agreement the respondent had agreed to a...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Yashwant Bedekar Vs. Mohan Sopan Gejage and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
1. Admit. Respondents waive notice through their respective Counsel. By consent, the appeal is called out and heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The appellant is the original applicant in MACT Application No.61 of 2009, which was dismissed by the learned Member, Tribunal, Khed by its order dated 8.1.2013. The appellant had filed an injury claim u/s 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act for Rs.5 lacs with interest. On 21.3.2006, the applicant was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.MH-08/M-5464 towards Khed and when he reached near the hotel Pagoda, Khed on Mumbai -Goa highway, at about 1.30pm, a Maruti van bearing No.MH-08/C-5996, which was driven by opponent No.1, the owner of the vehicle, came from the opposite direction and gave a dash to the motor cycle. The opponent No.1 was driving the Maruti van in an excessive speed and rash and negligent manner. In the accident, the appellant sustained several injuries on his eyes, head, face, nose and chin and other parts of the body. His...
Tag this Judgment!Lupin Ltd. and Another Vs. Johnson and Johnson and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
MohitS. Shah, CJ. 1. This reference has been made to the Full Bench pursuant to the order dated 13 August 2012 of learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : B.R. Gavai, J.) for considering following question of law: Whether the Court can go into the question of the validity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark at an interlocutory stage when the defendant takes up the defence of invalidity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark in an infringement suit? 2. The learned Single Judge felt the need to make this reference in view of two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, one holding that the Court can not go into the question of validity of registration of a trade mark when such defence is taken by the defendant at an interlocutory stage in a suit for infringement of registered trade mark (judgment dated 16 February 2005 in M/s. Maxheal Pharmaceuticles v/s. Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Appeal No.88 of 2005 in N.M.No.2663 of 2004 in suit No.2663 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmalabai Pratapsingh Ade and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, th ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) 1. In Land Acquisition Case No. 18/1997, the Reference Court has delivered the judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2004, granting compensation of Rs.3,75,67,985/- along with the other statutory benefits payable in respect of acquisition of land of 1.21 HR equivalent to 1,29,345 sq.ft, out of Survey No. 118/3, situated at Digras. First Appeal No. 67 of 2005 has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 159/- per sq.ft., as against the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.ft granted by the reference Court. First Appeal No.414 of 2007 is preferred by the State challenging the enhancement of total compensation from Rs.4,84,000/- to Rs. 3,75,67,985/- granted by the Reference Court. 2. Both these appeals pertain to the acquisition made at Digras, Distt. Yavatmal, for construction of Court buildings and the quarters for the judges and were heard and the judgment was dictated in the open court on 8th December, 2014, allowi...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath and Others Vs. Ramu and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
1. Heard Shri R.L. Khapre, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.R. Deshpande, the learned Advocate for the respondent no.2(A). 2. The appeal is filed by the original defendant nos.1, 2 and 4 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the subordinate Courts granting decree in favour of the original respondent no.1/plaintiff upholding his entitlement for 1/9th share in the suit property. 3. The original respondent no.1/plaintiff filed the Civil Suit contending that Shri Balaji Sadashiv had two wives Sundarabai and Ginabai, Balaji had five sons and four daughters out of which the respondent no.1/plaintiff, the respondent no.2/original defendant no.3 and the respondent no.3/original defendant no.5 were from Sundarabai and rest of the brothers and sisters were from Ginabai. The original respondent no.1/plaintiff pleaded that his father died intestate. It was pleaded that in the partition between Balaji Sadashiv, Digambar original defendant no.2, Jagannath original defendant...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »