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.
Shakuntala Vs. Chandrabhan and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal arose out of the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.1999 passed in the Regular Civil Appeal No.263 of 1996 by the 4th Additional District Judge, Nagpur which was allowed. The said appeal was filed challenging the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.1996 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.1395 of 1990 by Civil Judge (J.D.), Nagpur whereby the suit was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the judgment by their nomenclature in title of the plaint respectively. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. This Second Appeal was admitted upon the following substantial questions of law. (i) Is it not that if the decree dated 28-07-1968 in Civil Suit No.1998/1967 is not executed within a period of 12 years as per article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the right of the owner to obtain possession of the suit property gets lost? (ii) Is it not if the decree dated 28-07-1968 in Civil Suit No.2998/1967 is not executed within a period of 12 years as p...
B.V.B.A. Sailam and Others Vs. M/S. Helios Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Oral Order: 1. The parties are diamond merchants. The plaintiff carries on business in Belgium. The defendant carries on business in Mumbai and Surat. There have been transactions for the sale of diamonds between the parties. 2. The plaintiff sold certain polished diamonds to the defendant under 4 invoices dated 25th January, 2011, 26th January, 2011, 31st January, 2011 and 4rh February, 2011. The invoices were accompanied by 4 shipping instructions, 4 export documents and 4 airway bills. The goods were sent to the defendant in Surat, India. 3. These goods have been accepted by the defendant. It is stated that the goods were transported to Mumbai. The defendant has claimed that it has returned the goods to the plaintiff under its jangad/challan dated 4th February, 2011 to the plaintiff's address in Mumbai. The defendant claims that since the plaintiff had no office in Mumbai, but its partner only resided in Mumbai the diamonds could not be imported in Mumbai itself and hence the plaint...
Vishwanath Gaonkar Vs. State Through P.P.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Shet, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the part of the judgment and order dated 27/04/2012 and sentence dated 30/04/2012 by which the present appellant came to be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. The period of detention already undergone by the accused appellant was set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 3. The appellant was accused no.1 in Sessions Case No. 17/2009 and he shall, hereinafter, be referred to as accused no.1. Accused no.1 along with accused no.2 namely Nandkishore Naik was charge sheeted by Churchorem Police Station before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanguem for offence p...
Deputy Collector and (L.A) and Another Vs. Desiderio Rafael De Piedade ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment and Award passed by the learned District Judge (II), South Goa, Margao, by which the learned Judge has decided the reference and granted compensation to the original claimants at the rate of Rs.1265/- per square metre along with all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (The Act, for short). 2. The appeal is filed by the Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O), Margao and the Executive Engineer, Works Division VI (R and B) P.W.D., Fatorda, Goa. 3. The original claimants have also filed Cross Objection which is registered as Cross Objection No.4 of 2009. 4. Heard Shri S. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate for the Appellants and Shri A. F. Diniz, learned counsel for the respondents (original claimants). I have seen the record with the assistance of the learned counsel. 5. The relevant facts are as follows: The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the offici...
Vithoba Vs. Anand and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
1) This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Appeal No.45 of 2002 which was pending in the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge-2 Ambajogai and against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.248 of 1994 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kaij, District Beed. The suit filed by the appellant/original plaintiff is dismissed by the trial Court and the first appellate court has confirmed this decision. Both the sides are heard for admission purpose. 2) It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that land Gut No.332 situated at Kekat Sarni, Tahsil Kaij, is in his possession. It is contended that the land is Devastan land belonging to Dattatraya Devasthan Ambajogai and one Yashwant Goswami was Inamdar of this land. It is contended that Yashwant had given the land to the plaintiff and his father for cultivation prior to 1950 and since then the plaintiff has been in possession of this land. It is contended that on 3-6-1992 written ...
The Chief Executive Officer and Others Vs. Mangal and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appeal is already admitted. Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the direction to pay compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- to the legal representatives of deceased Ashok Puri, i.e. present respondent nos.1 to 3, the present Appeal is preferred by the owner of the jeep. 3. Respondent nos.1 to 3 came before the Tribunal with a case that while deceased was travelling by jeep bearing no. MXV-7982 owned by the original respondent no.5 and insured with original respondent no.6 i.e. present respondent nos.4 and 5, at that time, the jeep bearing no. MXV-7593 owned by the Zilla Parishad i.e. by the present appellant came from the opposite side. Driver thereof i.e. original respondent no.4/appellant no.4-Lahu drove the said vehicle of the Zilla Parishad in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the opposite jeep. In the accident, deceased has died and, therefore, the compensation is claimed. 4. As regards the quantum of compensation, it was submitted that the deceased was 25 years...
Rajendra Halarnkar Vs. Anastazia Maria De Lourdes Ana Florentina De Fr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Naik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06/12/2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa (Trial magistrate), in Criminal Case No. 858/2010/NIA/B, whereby the accused came to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act', for short). 3. The appellant is the complainant whereas the respondent no.1 is the accused in the said criminal case. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said criminal case. 4. It was the case of the complainant that with a view to purchase a property admeasuring 8375 square metres, situated at village Aldona, at the rate of Rs. 400/- per square metre, from the accused, he had paid an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to her as advance payment and a Memorandum of Unders...
Official Trustee, State of Maharashtra Vs. Maharashtra Housing and Are ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Respondent No.1 is the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). Respondent No.2 is the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (MBRandRB). Respondent No.3 is the State of Maharashtra through the Urban Development Department (UDD). Respondent No.4 - M/s. Earth Design and Developers is the developer. Respondent No.5 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ("BMC" or "Corporation") 2. The Official Trustee originally sought an order setting aside a notice dated 28th April, 2009, issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under section 95-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act) issued in the name of the Poojari of the Shree Venkatesh Balaji Temple. The petition was amended twice. By the first amendment the Official Trustee also sought an order setting aside all the building plans, permissions, NOCs granted by respondent No.1 to 3 and 5 for the re-development of the temple. The Official Trustee sought an order sett...
Perfect Ply-n-wood, Through Its Proprietor Vs. Paresh C. Parekh
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: [1] This appeal filed by the Appellant/original Opponent “ M/s. Perfect Ply-N-Wood (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent for the sake of brevity) takes an exception to an order dated 04/02/2012 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.237 of 2007, Mr. Paresh C. Parekh Vs. M/s. Perfect Ply-N-Wood. [2] The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:- The Respondent/original Complainant “ Mr. Paresh C. Parekh (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) was to have furniture for his house which is situated in the vicinity of Gorai creek. Hence, he wanted furniture which is not affected by humidity and moisture. The Opponent, who is a dealer in plywood and doing the business in the name and style as Perfect Ply-N-Wood, had recommended to the Complainant to use the marine orchid plywood. Accordingly, the Complainant purchased marine orchid plywood and paid ...
icici Bank Limited and Another Vs. Gol Offshore Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
G.S. Patel, J. 1. The applicant, ICICI Bank Limited (œICICI Bank?), is not a party to the Company Petition. The Company Petition was brought by the Bank of New York Mellon, London Branch, formerly known as the Bank of New York, London Branch (œBNYM?) against GOL Offshore Limited (œGOL Offshore?) for winding up. BNYM filed the petition as a trustee for some holders of unsecured foreign currency convertible bonds issued in 2007 by GOL Offshore. 2. In the Company Petition, BNYM filed Company Application (L) No.549 of 2013. That application sought reliefs inter alia in relation to 352 sq ft jack-up rig known as Rig V-351 or Rig Somnath. 3. BNYMs Company Application was taken up by this court. Three orders were passed on 28th October 2013, 29th November 2013 and 11th December 2013. ICICI Banks present application seeks leave to be impleaded as a respondent to the Company Application; alternatively, leave to intervene; a modification of the order dated 11th December 2013 in...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »