Mumbai Court February 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.
itd Cementation India Ltd. Vs. Reliance Infrastructure Limited and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
1. The Plaintiff in the present Suit is seeking a restraint order against Defendant No.1 from in any manner demanding and/or receiving the amounts under Bank Guarantees (ExhibitsA to A-10 of the Plaint) bearing Nos. 1100041BGP00335, 1201261BGA00008, 1201261BGA00010, 1201261BGA00011, 032821GPER002011, 03821GPER002111, 03821GPER002211, 03821GPER002311, 13940100000510, 13940100000511 and 0156111IPG000052 (œthe said Bank Guarantees?). 2. The Plaintiff has also taken out the present Notice of Motion seeking adinterim and interim injunction against the Defendant No.1 from receiving and against Defendant Nos.2 to 5 from making any payments to the Defendant No.1 under the said Bank Guarantees. 3. The Defendant No.1 had entered into a concession agreement with the National Highways Authority of India for designing, engineering, construction, development, finance, operation and maintenance of the Pune-Satara Section of National Highway-4. The Defendant No.1 entered into an Agreement dated ...
P.A. Inamdar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Additiona ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
Oral Order: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) Rule. Hearing expedited. Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP waives notice on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan waives service on behalf of Respondent No.3. 2 Heard in view of urgency for interim relief. 3 The Petitioners have challenged order/communication dated 22 November 2013 passed by Respondent No.3-Pravesh Niyantran Samiti (for short, Samiti), thereby refused to grant permission to conduct Postgraduate entrance test for admission of muslim minority students for First M.D.S. Course for academic year 20142015 in Petitioner No.3-College (M. A. Rangoonwala College, Pune). The impugned order is as follows: œItem No. 5(g) : Letter dated 11 November 2013 M.C.E. Society's M. A. Rangoonwala College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Pune requesting to permit to conduct CET-2014 for admission to Minority Quota for Post Graduate Dental Course for the Academic Year 2013-14. Samiti perused the aforesaid letters received from M.C.E. Society's M. A....
Union of India General Manager and Another Vs. J.S. Kharat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner-Union of India assails the Judgment and order dated 2.12.2004 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Original Application No.189 of 2004. By the impugned Judgment, the Central Administrative Tribunal has partly allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent to the extent that the period of suspension of the respondent has been directed to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of computation of pensionary and other pension benefits. 2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether under Rule 37 and Rule 50 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rule 1993 an employee who was under suspension and ultimately was compulsorily retired would be entitled for availing of the period of suspension to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other pensionary ben...
Sau. Rukhmabai Vs. Samadhan and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By order dated 17.4.2013 the notices were issued for final disposal of this Second Appeal upon substantial question of law formulated as follows: Whether the findings recorded by the Appellate Court are vitiated on account of ignorance of material aspects considered by the trial Court? 2. Heard submissions advanced on behalf of Shri A.V.Bhide, learned counsel appearing for the appellant who questions the validity and legality of the judgment and order, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.91 of 2005, decided on 24.8.2012, whereby the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.99 of 1998 was set aside and the suit was dismissed with costs. 3. The facts in a nutshell, are thus: That the suit land i.e. Gat No.150, situated in village Ambetakli Shivar, Taluka Khamaon, District Buldana, admeasuring 3 H 17 R, was acquired by plaintiff - Sau. Rukhmabai W/o Rambhau Bhad, under registered Sale Deed dated 14.2.1979. Defendant - Sau. Dwarkabai W/o Samadhan Ingle possessed ...
Fdc Limited Vs. Karl Wuthrich, Lic Lur., Attroney Official Liquidator ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a public limited Company, filed this consumer complaint through its Secretary (Executive) against the Opponent Transport Company alleging deficiency of service for non-delivery of the consignment to the addressee and claimed compensation of Rs.18,20,000/- for wrongful delivery and Rs.1,79,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. Admittedly, the Complainant is engaged in commercial activity and the consignment was dispatched overseas for commercial purpose. Transaction between the parties pertains to the year 1998 itself i.e. prior to amendment under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 w.e.f. 15.03.2013, incorporating exclusion of commercial purpose from the date of amendment. Therefore, this Complainant is a Consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Contentions of the Complainant are that, 120 cartons of medicines consisting Amoxicillin Capsules BP 500 mg. and Ampicillin Capsule BP 500 mg., ...
Jasvirsingh Naghendrasingh Garewal Vs. Chairman, the Nashik Merchants ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: [1] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 27/02/2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik in Consumer Complaint No.124 of 2005, Mr. Jasvirsingh Nagendrasingh Garewal Vs. Chairman, The Nashik Merchants Coop. Bank Ltd. and Another. [2] Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:- Appellant/original Complainant “ Mr. Jasvirsingh Naghendrasingh Garewal (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) had availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Respondent No.1/original Opponent No.1 “ The Nashik Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank for the sake of brevity) for purchasing a minibus bearing RTO Registration No.MH-15-B-9918. Complainant insured his vehicle with the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2 “ National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company for the sake of brevity). It is contended by the Complainant ...
Mahendrakumar Narottamdas Gandhi Vs. Rajanikant H. Doshi (Deceased) an ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This complaint is filed by complainant-Mahendrakumar Narottamdas Gandhi on behalf of his minor daughter. However, on attaining majority, Payal Mahendrakumar Gandhi is added as complainant. Complaint is filed under Section 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by alleging deficiency in service against opponents. Opponent No.4 is a builder. Opponent No.1-R.H. Doshi, Opponent No.2-Smt.Sudhaben R. Doshi and Opponent No.3-Shri Hemant Bhailal Kamdar were partners of opponent No.4-M/s.Akta Builders and Developers. During pendency of complaint, opponent No.1-Rajanikant H. Dohsi died and his legal heirs are brought on record. 2. According to the complainants, in the year 1994 opponent No.1 i.e. deceased R.H. Doshi learned that consumer was interested in having some flats for his family at Mira Road, District-Thane. Opponent No.1 offered flats in building under construction at Mira Road, Dist. Thane. The consumer being satisfied about credentials of o...
Rajinder Singh Vijan Vs. the General Manager, Emirates Airlines and Ot ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member: Being aggrieved by the order dated 01/08/2008 passed by Mumbai Suburban District at Mumbai in Consumer complaint No.398/04 partly allowing the complaint against opponent no.1 and 2 directing them to pay an amount of Rs.23,000/- and interest thereon @12% p.a. from 04/10/2004 till the date of payment and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused and Rs.10,000/- as costs of proceedings to the complainant, the present appeal has been preferred by the original opponent no.1 and 2. The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as below: Mr.Rajinder Singh Vijan (hereinafter referred to as complainant) booked air tickets of Emirates Airlines through Travel Corporation of India Pvt.Ltd. During the journey on 22/08/2003 from Singapore to Dubai and Dubai to Mumba by flight, the complainant handed over baggage containing articles weighing about 30 kgs. to the officials of the Emirates Airlines. On reaching Sahar A...
Shewantabai and Others Vs. Purushottam
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether in the facts and circumstances the first Appellate Court erred by refusing to hear first appeal on merits by refusing to condone delay? My answer is in the affirmative for the reasons as stated below. 3. This appeal arises from order dt. 8.11.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Wardha whereby the learned first Appellate Judge refused to condone delay on the ground of absence of reasonable explanation for the delay caused to prefer the First Appeal. It appears that present appellants are, in fact, legal heirs of appellant before the first Appellate Court namely Smt. Shewantabai Kashinath Kumbhare, who is referred to in the impugned order and who is no more living. Most of the reasoning given by the first Appellate Judge was about age of applicant Shewantabai as to whether she was aged 67 years or 82 years a...
Srl Limited Vs. Techtrek India Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
1 The Notice of Motion is for a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a sum of Rs.1,58,54,200/-. The admissions are said to be contained in various communications of the Defendant outside the pleadings. 2 The Plaintiff's case in the suit may be briefly stated thus. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into leave and licence agreements, under which the Plaintiff took on licence various floors of the building owned by the Defendant. The Plaintiff had kept interest free security deposits with the Defendant aggregating to Rs.1,78,54,200/- under these agreements. The Plaintiff returned the possession of the licensed premises to the Defendant. The security deposits aggregating to Rs.1,78,54,200/- were agreed to be refunded according to a payment schedule given on 6 April 2010. The Defendant refunded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from out of the said security deposits, but failed to refund the balance. The cheques issued by the Defendant towards such refu...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »