Mumbai Court March 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.
Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
P.C. 1. Heard. The Application for intervention is allowed. 2. Application No. 27 of 2014 is moved for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr. P.C. The complainant is a lady who has lodged a complaint under section 420, 406, 376, 323, 506(2) of IPC. The crime is registered at C.R. No. I-321 of 2013 with Upanagar Police Station, Nashik. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant and applicant/accused both were having an affair and there was a promise by the applicant/accused to marry the complainant. The complainant, therefore, readily kept sexual relationship with the applicant. It is the case of the complainant that since 1999 the complainant knew applicant/accused and in November, 2006 they had sexual interaction. At the relevant time the applicant/accused has told her that he wanted to marry her and therefore, the complainant did not object to have sexual relations with him at different places. In the year 2008-09 the applicant avoided to talk about their marriage ...
M/S. M.F. JaIn Engineers and Contractors Vs. the Maharashtra State Pow ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Petitioner initially challenged the allotment of tender work to respondent no.2 and sought direction that it should be allotted to it. This Court issued notice on 24th January, 2014. In view of the subsequent events, petition has been amended to challenge the work order issued by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 on 24th January, 2014. 2. Work in dispute is described in tender Code No.36012 dated 2nd November, 2013. Technical bids were opened on 7th November, 2013 and the price bid has been opened on 2nd January, 2014. Respondent no.2 has been found lowest. The petitioner had raised objection but it was rejected on 18th January, 2014 by respondent no.1. Then work order came to be issued. Present petition came to be filed on 23rd January, 2014. Looking to the nature of controversy, we have heard it finally with consent of the parties by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 3. By inviting attention to the documents required to be su...
Ajay and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its : the Princi ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
N.W. Sambre, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties. 3. The present petitioners, claiming to be appointed as Data Entry Operators on contract basis, have questioned the communication dated 9.11.2012, issued by the Director of Education (Primary), directing all the Education Officers (Primary), Zilla Parishad in the State of Maharashtra, to start the process of recruitment of Data Entry Operators on contract basis afresh. 4. The petitioners claim that in view of the directions issued by the Honourable Apex Court, the Central Government has floated a scheme with an intention to provide cooked food to the students of the Primary Schools with effect from 1995-96, which is identified as 'Mid-Day Meal scheme'. The said scheme came to be implemented through the State Government at the level of Director of Education. 5. For achieving the object of implementation of the scheme in the entire State, the State has resolved to fill up 397 pos...
Mohmmod and Another Vs. Osman Khan and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
1. This proceeding is filed to challenge the judgment and order passed in Wakf Suit No.40 of 2010 which was pending before the Presiding officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. The suit filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 for relief of possession of some immovable properties is decreed in their favour. The Wakf Tribunal has directed the present applicants, defendant nos. 1 and 2 to the suit, to handover possession of suit properties to the plaintiffs and Wakf Board. 2. Both the sides are heard. 3. The suit was filed in respect of lands bearing Survey Nos.17 and 18, situated at Dharur, District Beed. Possession of these lands was claimed and relief of declaration was claimed in respect of judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.91 of 1980 to the effect that the judgment and decree is not binding on the plaintiffs and Wakf Board. It is the case of the plaintiff that both the lands are service Inam lands and they are given for rendering service to Jama Masjid and Graveyard of...
Sks Logistics Ltd. Vs. Fairmacs Shipping and Transport Services Pvt. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Colabawalla, J.) 1. In the present appeal exception is taken to the order of the learned single Judge dated 25th February 2013 dismissing the Arbitration Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (œthe Act?) challenging the Award dated 2nd December 2011 (and subsequently corrected on 13.01.2012) passed by the arbitral tribunal, under which the appellant was inter alia directed to pay a sum of Rs.52,54,046.34 to the respondent together with costs of Rs.30,00,000/-. The appellant herein was the original respondent in the arbitration and the respondent herein was the original claimant. 2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and was at the relevant time the owner of a vessel œM. V. Royal Pisces? (said vessel). The respondent company carries on business of transporting and shipping goods. By and under a fixture note dated 22nd June 2007, the appellant gave its vessel on h...
Gurvir Inder Singh Vs. Marina Paes Also Known as Merilia Paes and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. This appeal is preferred against an order passed on 07.08.2013 by the learned District Judge-1, Mapusa, in Civil Suit No. 5/2012, thereby rejecting the applications for interim reliefs as per Exhibits 4, 5 and 6. 3. The short point involved in the appeal is :- whether the discretion exercised by learned District Judge-1, Mapusa in refusing injuctory reliefs to the appellant is arbitrary and perverse? 4. The case of the appellant is that he is the tenant of respondent no. 1 in respect of House No. 1150 at Ximer, Candolim, (herein after called as œsuit house?) since November, 2010 on monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/-. It is the case of the appellant that the suit house has been let out to him for residential and commercial purpose. He has submitted that in the past, respondents no. 1 and 2 had attempted to evict the appellant, therefore, a police complaint was filed by him. The matter, however, was compromised on 12.01.2011. 5....
Sks Logistics Ltd. Vs. Fairmacs Shipping and Transport Services Pvt. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Colabawalla, J.) 1. In the present appeal exception is taken to the order of the learned single Judge dated 25th February 2013 dismissing the Arbitration Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (œthe Act?) challenging the Award dated 2nd December 2011 (and subsequently corrected on 13.01.2012) passed by the arbitral tribunal, under which the appellant was inter alia directed to pay a sum of Rs.52,54,046.34 to the respondent together with costs of Rs.30,00,000/-. The appellant herein was the original respondent in the arbitration and the respondent herein was the original claimant. 2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and was at the relevant time the owner of a vessel œM. V. Royal Pisces? (said vessel). The respondent company carries on business of transporting and shipping goods. By and under a fixture note dated 22nd June 2007, the appellant gave its vessel on h...
R. Mada Swamy and Another Vs. Indian Express Newspaper (Mumbai). Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
1. These two petitions arise from order passed by the Labour Court dismissing the complaint filed by the Petitioner and dismissal of the revision by the Industrial Court. A common inquiry was conducted and the charges against these two Petitioners are more or less similar and arise from one incident. Therefore, these two petitions are taken together. The learned counsel for the parties have also argued these two petitions together. 2. The Petitioner R Mada Swamy in Writ Petition No.3815 of 1998 and Tanaji Yadav in Writ Petition No.3816 of 1998 were working with the respondent Indian Express Newspaper Private Limited. Mr Mada Swamy was working as Rotary Baller and Tanaji Yadav was working as Stores Mazdoor, (referred to as the Workmen) were issued a charge-sheet on 7 December 1982. The charge against the Workmen was as under: œThat for the past few days Mr.Narayan Pujari, Mr.Mohamed Kasim U. Kha, Mr.A.Ramraj etc. were working during recess break, accepting food allowance and also ...
M/S. M.F. JaIn Engineers and Contractors Vs. the Maharashtra State Pow ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Petitioner initially challenged the allotment of tender work to respondent no.2 and sought direction that it should be allotted to it. This Court issued notice on 24th January, 2014. In view of the subsequent events, petition has been amended to challenge the work order issued by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 on 24th January, 2014. 2. Work in dispute is described in tender Code No.36012 dated 2nd November, 2013. Technical bids were opened on 7th November, 2013 and the price bid has been opened on 2nd January, 2014. Respondent no.2 has been found lowest. The petitioner had raised objection but it was rejected on 18th January, 2014 by respondent no.1. Then work order came to be issued. Present petition came to be filed on 23rd January, 2014. Looking to the nature of controversy, we have heard it finally with consent of the parties by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 3. By inviting attention to the documents required to be su...
Vishwanath Hiralal Joshi Vs. Vimalabai Magangal Joshi and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of R.C.A. No. 259/2007 which was pending in the Court of District Judge-2, Jalgaon. The appeal was filed by present respondent/owner against judgment and decree of R.C.S. No. 71/2001 which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon. The suit was filed by present respondent for relief of possession of some premises and the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court has set aside that judgment and decree and the decision is given in favour of owner. Both the sides are heard. 2. It is the case of respondent/owner that the defendant is a son of sister of her mother-in-law. It is contended that the defendant was in dire need of some premises for starting business as he was unemployed. It is contended that considering his need and relationship, the plaintiff allowed him to use plat-form portion (Ota portion) of her house for the business. It is contended that defendant was in financial crises and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »