Mumbai Court March 2014 Judgments
Deputy Regional Transport Officer and Another Vs. Yeshwant
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.7.2007 passed by the District Judge-II, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 431 of 2000 whereby appeal of the present respondent was allowed and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit was set aside. 2. Plaintiff (present respondent) filed RCS No. 829 of 1997 before the Civil Judge, SD, Akola claiming following reliefs: œ(1) Pass a decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them from not registering the vehicle of plaintiff permanently. (2) It may kindly be declared that the act of the defendants in not registering the vehicle as a transport vewhicle is an injustice upon the plaintiff and therefore, direction may kindly be issued to register the vehicle as transport-vehicle forthwith. (3) Compensation may kindly be awarded to plaintiff and same be saddled on both the defendants jointly and severally. (4) .... (5) .....? 3. Plaintiff was desirous to p...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Regional Transport Officer and Another Vs. Yeshwant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.7.2007 passed by the District Judge-II, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 431 of 2000 whereby appeal of the present respondent was allowed and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit was set aside. 2. Plaintiff (present respondent) filed RCS No. 829 of 1997 before the Civil Judge, SD, Akola claiming following reliefs: œ(1) Pass a decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them from not registering the vehicle of plaintiff permanently. (2) It may kindly be declared that the act of the defendants in not registering the vehicle as a transport vewhicle is an injustice upon the plaintiff and therefore, direction may kindly be issued to register the vehicle as transport-vehicle forthwith. (3) Compensation may kindly be awarded to plaintiff and same be saddled on both the defendants jointly and severally. (4) .... (5) .....? 3. Plaintiff was desirous to p...
Tag this Judgment!Tereza Gomes, Since Deceased, Represented Through Her Legal Heirs: and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment, order and decree dated 16/06/2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa at Margao (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 173/2000. The said Regular Civil Appeal was, in turn, filed against the judgment, order and decree dated 31/08/2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao ('trial Court') in Regular Civil Suit No. 112/1982/F. The said suit as well as the said First Appeal have been dismissed by the concerned Judges. 3. The present Second Appeal was admitted on following substantial question of law: œWhether in view of Article 2015 of the Portuguese Civil Code, respondents no. 5 and 6 can be said to have legally purchased a specific plot of land admeasuring 338 square metres from the suit property which was indivisible and belonging to the same inheritance as long as the part...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Ishaque Syed Nabi and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.R. Bora, J.) 1. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Maldhure, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 2. Refusal by the respondents to the proposal submitted by the petitioners in regard to re-employment of Petitioner No. 1 beyond the age of superannuation on the post of Head Master of Shah Babu High School and Junior College, Patur, a School run by Petitioner No. 2, is under challenge in the present petition. 3. Petitioner No. 2 is a Minority Education Institute registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as well as Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Petitioner No. 1 is a Head Master of Shah Babu High School and Junior College, Patur. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Head Master of the said School on 01.07.1992 and since then he continuously worked on the said post. Petitioner No. 1 was to retire on 30.06.2007 on attain...
Tag this Judgment!Nicolau Fernandes and Others Vs. Sounsthan Partagal Jeevotham Math and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-I, (Fast Track Court-I), South Goa, Margao, in Civil Suit no. 2/2005 on 26.12.2007,by which the suit filed by the Appellants. 2. The case of the Appellants is that they are the owners of the property known as "Ashthagalle" which is surveyed under nos. 22/1(part), 22/3(part), 23/1, 23/3, 23/4, 24/1, 25/1, 26/1 and 27/1. According to the Plaintiffs, the cause of action in filing the suit has arisen when they noticed illegal felling of trees in the suit property by defendant no. 1. On making inquiries, the Plaintiffs came to know that the defendant no. 1 had obtained the licence for cutting trees from survey no. 22/1 of Village Poinguinim. According to the Plaintiffs, they made a request and on it the properties of the Plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 were verified as per the boundaries mentioned in the documents by Engineer Vikas Dessai in the presence of the RFO, Canacona. On ver...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No.81 Of 2010 dated 21st December, 2010 by which the learned court below convicted the Appellant (Ori.Accused) for the offence punishment U/Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short, the I.P.Code) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three [3] years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- [Rs.Five Thousand only] and in default of payment of fine amount, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one [1] year. The Appellant was also convicted for the offence punishment U/Section 302 of the I.P.Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- [Rs.Ten Thousand only] and in default of payment of fine amount, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three [3] years. The Appellant was further held guilty of committing an offence punishable U/Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Babu Konkeri and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
P.V. Hardas, J. 1. Criminal Appeal 502 of 1993 is filed by original accused No.1, while Criminal Appeal 472 of 1993 is filed by original accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. The Appellants who stand convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Nos. 2 to 4 who are sentenced to imprisonment for life and each accused to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and rigorous imprisonment for three years and each accused to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur by judgment dated 12 August 1993, by these Appeals challenge the conviction and sentence. Since original accused No.1 was not sentenced, a reference is made by the Trial Cort under Section 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for passing sentence against him. The Appeals and the Reference are being accordingly decided by this common ...
Tag this Judgment!Fatima Bi Ali Kazi Vs. M.A. Rashid and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondents no. 1, 3 and 4. None for respondent no. 2. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts below have committed a serious error of law by examining the case of the appellant/plaintiff from a different perspective. He submits that it was never the case of the appellant that the appellant had entered into a contract with the original owner, M/s Zuari Real Estate Company Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of the suit-plot. He has submitted that it was the case of the appellant/plaintiff that she had made an agreement with respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 who represented to her that he was developing the property of which suit-plot was the part after having entered into an agreement for purchase of the property with the owner and that he had right and authority to transfer the suit-plot and, therefore, the appellant made payment of price of the suit-plot to respondent no. 1. He also submits ...
Tag this Judgment!Gati Ltd., Formerly Known as Gati Corporation Ltd. Vs. Atcom Technolog ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
G.S. Patel, J. 1. The petitioner, Gati Limited (œGati?) seeks winding up of the respondent-company, Atcom Technologies Limited (œAtcom?) under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, on the ground that Atcom has failed to pay a decretal debt obtained by Gati against Atcom in the principal sum of Rs.8,00,217/- plus further interest, aggregating to Rs.27,52,746.48. 2. On 5th November 1988, Atcom and Gati entered into a contract, under which Gati was required to transport Atcoms good to different destinations in India. The contract required payment to be made by Atcom within 15 days of Gati submitting its bills or invoices. There was also a contractual provision for interest at 2% per mensem on unpaid bills. 3. Gati claims that Atcom did not pay several of its bills. Gati filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against Atcom (Suit No.55 of 2000) in the court of the 1st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for rec...
Tag this Judgment!Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs. DolphIn Drilling Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
1. The Petition challenges an order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal on 23 April 2013, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The Petitioner and the Respondent entered into an agreement dated 17 October 2003 for charter hire of the Deep Water Drilling Rig œBelford Dolphin? along with services on an integrated basis. Under the agreement the Respondent agreed to perform drilling operations in the off-shores in India as may be designated by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was referred to as an Operator, whilst the Respondent was referred to as a Contractor under the agreement. The disputes between the parties arose in respect of the various invoices raised by the Respondent towards the drilling operations and integrated services performed by the Respondent under the agreement for the Petitioner. The invoices raised by the Respondent, in respect of which the dispute arose, were either not paid or not paid in full by the Petitioner. These disputes were referred to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »