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.
Wadhwa Estates and Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Spectrum Co-operat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By this notice of motion, the plaintiff seeks appointment of court receiver in respect of flat No.6 situated on the second floor in a building known as Spectrum of the Spectrum CHS Ltd. 14B Road, Khar West, Bombay 400052 with power to take possession with the help of police station and to hand over the same to the plaintiff and also seeks injunction in respect thereof against defendant No.2 to 6. 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this notice of motion are as under : (a) Defendant No.1 is the owner of land admeasuring 1827 Sq. Yards bearing CTS No.E/231 and CTS No.241, 242 and 243 of village Danda in Santacruz, Mumbai having 20 apartments. The said building was constructed in the year 1964. (b) In the Annual General Meeting of defendant no.1 held on 31st July, 2005, it was decided to redevelop the said property. 15 out of total 20 members were present. 12 members agreed for redevelopement and two members were undecided. Mrs. Nirmala B. Lulla who...
Dr. S.J. Kamble Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Chair ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-16-2014
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioner Dr. Kamble, has prayed for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager with deemed date and consequent benefits thereupon, inter alia, to direct respondent no.1 to maintain Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe roster in the matter of promotion.2. In support of the petition, Ms Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and there is no system with respondent no.1-Insurance Company for maintaining roster for SC and ST candidates and, therefore, there should be direction from this Court to do so particularly firstly because respondent no.1 is a Government Company. She then submitted that the petitioner is qualified having masters degree in Veterinary Science and Business Administration, so also in law. He was appointed as Assistant Administrative Officer, Veterinary in the year 1985 and, thereafter, was promoted in 1989 to the post of Administrative Officer (Veterinary). The pe...
Mirzban Darabshaw Surti Vs. Cedric Vaz and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2014
1. One Vivien Theresa Vaz ("Vivien") died at Mumbai on 3rd March 1988. According to the Petitioner, Mirzban Darabshaw Surti ("Mirzban"), Vivien left a Will dated 21st August 1997. Mirzban says he is the sole executor under this Will. He seeks to probate it. 2. Under the Will Mirzban propounds, Vivien bequeathed her Provident Fund and Gratuity to Mehernosh Marzban Surti ("Mehernosh") and Rumi Marzban Surti ("Rumi") equally. Her Family Pension Fund and her Co-operative Society dues were allegedly willed to Rumi and Mirzban respectively. To her nephew, one Ryan Elton Xavier, the Defendants' son, she allegedly bequeathed a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and her share in the sale of 102, Manish Sea Croft, Sherly Mala Road, Bandra(West), Bombay 400 050 should that flat be sold after her death. Her jewellery she left to her sister-in-law, i.e., Defendant No 2. She also allegedly made a bequest to Mirzban of the balances standing to the credit of all her bank accounts, the contents of her bank lockers, an...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashwita Arvind Poll and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-16-2014
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.09.2008, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa (M.A.C.T., for short), in Claim Petition No. 9/2006. 3. The appellant was the respondent no. 3-insurance company; the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 were the claimants and respondents no. 4, 5 were respondents no. 1 and 2 who were respectively the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said claim petition. 4. The claimants had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act, for short) for grant of total compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- on account of death of the husband of the claimant no. 1 and the father of the claimants no. 2 and 3. 5. Case of the claimants, in short, was as follows:- The husband of claimant no.1 and father of claimants no. 2 and 3, namely, Arvind Poll, ag...
Mahendra Ashok Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. Cri. Appeal No.193 of 2013 has been preferred by original accused No.2 - Mahendra Ashok Jadhav, Cri. Appeal No.378 of 2013 has been preferred by original accused No.1 - Gurunath Ragho Waghe and original accused No.3 - Rajesh Pandit Waghe and Cri. Appeal No.1163 of 2013 has been preferred by original accused No.4 - Subhash Javu Jadhav. All these appeals have been preferred by the appellants -original accused Nos.1 to 4 against the judgment and order dated 31.1.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.191 of 2011. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25000/- each, in default R.I. for six months. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the appellants as they were referred before the trial Court i.e Gurunath Ragho Waghe will be re...
Mohd. Anis Mohd Rafique Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-2014
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. The Appellant (Original accused no.1) who stands convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-and in default of payment of fine to suffer imprisonment for six months and further convicted for the offence punishable under section 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine further suffer imprisonment for 6 months with a direction that the sentences to run concurrently, by the Sessions Judge, Thane, by judgment dated 9th July, 2014 in Sessions Case No.465 of 2012 by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. Briefly stated the facts as are necessary for decision of this appeal are thus: 2. PW 10-Dnyaneshwar Dashrath Shivtare Police Inspector attached to Diagar police station was on duty on 7th Mar...
P.C. Joshi, Indian Citizen, A practicing Advocate and Others Vs. Union ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-2014
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waives service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, a practicing advocate prays for the following reliefs:- (a) Declare the impugned provisions in section 65(105) (zzzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 as inserted by the Finance Act, 2011 as null and void and ultra vires the Constitution of India and/or section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 and/or be pleased to strike down the said provisions as ultra vires, arbitrary and violative of Articles 13, 14, 19(1)(g), 246, 265 and 268A of the Constitution of India. (b) Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of like nature, quashing section 71(A)(5)(d) of the Finance Act, 2011. (c) Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the Respondents themselves, by their servants, ag...
Ravindra Vs. Lakhmichand Prakashchand Keswani and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-15-2014
Oral Judgment: (R.K. Deshpande, J.) 1. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel appearing for both parties. 2. The plaint in Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2012 seeking Specific Performance of the agreements dated 9th of February, 2011 and 11th of February, 2011 has been rejected by the Trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of Code of Civil Procedure holding that reading of the plaint along with documents produced on record show that there is no concluded contract with the defendant nos.2 and 3 and there is no ratification from Sau.Neha Badlani and Sau.Geeta Badlani, who are not parties to the documents and contract therefore does not become enforcible conferring the rights upon the plaintiff. The original plaintiff is, therefore, before this Court in this First Appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Shri S.P.Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Advocate Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari has placed reliance upon the following decisions of the Apex Cour...
Gangadhar Ramsa Gudwar Vs. Shridhar Ramsa Gudwar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-15-2014
Oral Judgment:1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.2. The following substantial questions of law arise in the present second appeal:1] Whether the finding recorded by both the Courts that the suit for partition was barred by limitation is correct?2] Whether the finding recorded by the trial Court that the defendant had acquired title through prescription as maintained by the first appellate Court is in accordance with law?3] The appellant is the original plaintiff while the respondent is his elder brother. Both the brothers jointly purchased the suit property on 02.01.1978. According to plaintiff, on 21.10.2006 he had sought partition of the suit property but as the same was refused aforesaid suit came to be filed.4. The respondent-defendant in his written statement took the plea that there was an oral partition on 02.10.1982 in which the suit property came to his share. He further stated that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for partition i...
Manish Vorani Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-2014
1. Having heard both sides and perusing the entire Petition, we are of the view that the Tribunal could have taken and in law a reasonable and sympathetic view. The Petitioner was aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai Zone -I, dated 15th October, 2010. He approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, that Appeal was beyond time and to be precise by 340 days. The application seeking condonation of this delay mentioned the cause as illness not only of the Petitioner but his family members. The Tribunal passes the initial order holding that there is absolutely no evidence on record and details of illness of either the Petitioner or his family members. The Petitioner once again approaches the Tribunal and prays that such an order be recalled and the voluminous record in the form of medical certificates, medical reports and opinion of the medical practitioners be considered. Even that a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »