Mumbai Court April 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.
Harish Loyalka and Another Vs. Dileep Nevatia and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
PC:- 1. The 1st defendant to the suit and the plaintiff to the counter-claim, Mr. Nevatia, has filed a further affidavit dated 10th March 2014 in lieu of examination in chief. Substantial portions of this affidavit, notably from the fourth line of paragraph 12 to the end of that paragraph, and from paragraph 14 onwards are in the nature of submissions, arguments and not in the nature of evidence. Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs to the suit is justified in his contention that he ought not to be required to cross-examine Mr. Nevatia on these submissions as they are not testimony. 2. The provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (œCPC?)require that the œexamination in chief? shall be on affidavit. This means that the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief can contain, and contain only, such material as is properly admissible in examination in chief, in a manner no different than if the witness was in the witness box and his dire...
Sudhakar Vs. Shripat
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal was admitted on 19.11.2088 by formulating the question of law as under “ œWhether the Courts wrongly assumed jurisdiction to try the suit when the suit was filed on the basis of a relationship of licensor and licensee in view of the provisions of Section 26 (2) of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act?? 2. Section 26 (2) is in Chapter IV-AI of the Act relating to recovery of possession of certain immovable property and certain licence fees and rent. Section 26 of the Act provides that suits or proceedings between licensors and licensees or landlords and tenants for recovery of possession of immovable property and licence fees or rent, except those to which other Acts apply, shall lie in Court of Small Causes. The non obstante clause in sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Act provides that the Court of Small Causes shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try all suits and proceedings between a licensor and licensee, or a landlord and t...
Shikshak Sahakari Bank Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its P ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard finally by consent of Shri N.C. Phadnis, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. N.P. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. Rule is therefore issued and made returnable forthwith. 2. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner a Co-operative Bank questions common judgment dated 03.05.2013 delivered in Second Appeal Nos.469 to 473 of 2012 by the 4th Bench of Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal at Mumbai, holding that it cannot grant leave to petitioners to file an appeal under Section 55 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and dismissing its appeal as unsustainable. Thus, merits of challenge have not been looked into. 3. Facts necessary to understand the challenge can briefly be stated now. Petitioner is a Co-operative Bank registered as such under the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. In course of its business, it extended term loan of Rs.1 Crore to one M/s. Ka...
Shakeel Noorani Vs. Sanjay Dutt
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
1. This chamber summons has been filed by the respondent praying that the execution application filed by the claimant be dismissed and the attachment levied on his flat No. 1101, Imperial Heights 58, Nargis Dutt Road, Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400050 (suit property) be raised and/or set aside. The primary ground of challenge is that the decision given by the committee of œIndian Motion Picture Producers Association? (IMPPA) on 28th January 2010 is not an arbitral award as contemplated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) and consequently no execution proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) could be initiated for enforcement thereof. 2. The facts relevant to the dispute are as follows:- (a) The claimant is a producer of a feature film œJAAN KI BAAZI? starring the respondent as well as other actors. The shooting for the film started in October, 2001 and was 50% complete. According to the claimant the respondent was ...
Chandabai Vs. Mehmood Khan Abdul Hamid Khan
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 10.9.2013, passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.43 of 2010, whereby the appeal was dismissed, which arose from judgment and order dated 21.11.2009, passed by the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Suit No.44 of 2004, whereby the suit was partly decreed with costs. 2. This second appeal was admitted on 19.12.2013, by my learned brother Judge Shri S.B.Shukre, on the following substantial questions of law, thus: (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Small Causes Courts could be said to have jurisdiction to try the suit, when the suit is based on relationship of partnership and seeks a declaratory relief, in view of the bar created by Item 19 and Item 29 of 2nd Schedule of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, oral evidence inconsistent with and contr...
Domnic Luis Vs. State Represented by the Pp
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mrs. Gomes Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By this Revision Application, the petitioner has taken exception to the judgment and order dated 04/10/2013 passed by the learned Sessions Court, South Goa, Margao (Sessions Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 49/2011. The Revision Application was admitted on 1/10/2013 and hearing was expedited. In this Revision Application, on 03/04/2014, i.e. yesterday, the applicant filed an application under Stamp Number Application No. 910 of 2014 praying therein to direct the respondent to conduct a narco analysis test and/or brain electrical activation test of the petitioner prior to hearing the petitioner's Revision Application. The Revision Application as well as the said Miscellaneous Application are taken up together for final hearing. 3. The petitioner was the appellant in the said Criminal Appe...
BellarmIn Peter Fernandes @ Elias Bernardo Fernandes Vs. Nagendra Kott ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
1. This Appeal arises out of the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Clam Petition No.191/2005 on 31/3/2008 by which the Tribunal has partly allowed the Claim petition and has directed the original respondents no.2 and 3 to pay jointly and/or severally to the claimants Rs.20,500/- as compensation with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till payment is made along with proportionate costs. This amount was directed to be paid as interim compensation under no fault liability. 2. The case of the appellant is that he is working as a Junior Engineer in Water Resources Department of Works Divn-III at Ponda in the State of Goa and getting salary of Rs.16,955/- per month. It is the case of the appellant that on 15/8/2004 at about 5.00 p.m., when he was returning along with his friends in the car owned by his wife, from Pollem Margao, an Ambassador car came from the opposite side from wrong side of the road at Carai, Maxem near Canac...
Bhagat Gopaldas Thakrani and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Thro ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Challenge in all these 3 Writ Petitions by the elected Municipal Councilors of Municipal Council, Gondia is identical. Three petitioners in these three petitions seek a direction to respondent no.2 - Divisional Commissioner and respondent no.3 - Collector to decide applications at Annexures “ H and I, filed by them seeking transfer of matters against them from respondent no.4 - Additional Collector to Collector, Gondia or any other Authority in Gondia District on account of loss of faith. Other prayer is for a writ to transfer those proceedings and till then to stay further proceedings in Disqualification Petition No.45/2012 (New No.36/9/1213). 2. This Court has while issuing notice in the matter on 17.01.2014 heard the Counsel for caveator (Respondent no.5) and stayed the declaration of any order by respondent no.4 - Additional Collector. On 12.03.2014 this Court permitted respondent no.4 to pronounce his orders with a direction that said order shall no...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Khedekar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The Appeal arises out of the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition no. 44 of 2006 dated 09.04.2008 by which it is held that the original claimants are entitled for compensation at Rs.2,44,995/- as per the calculations. However, it is held that there is negligence on the part of the claimant also, the Tribunal has finalised the amount of compensation at Rs.1,72,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the application till the date of the Award. The Tribunal directed that the amount received by the claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, shall be adjusted while paying the amount of compensation. 2. The Appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited. The claimants, owner and driver of the vehicle which was involved in the claim, have not filed any Appeal. 3. Heard Shri Timble, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Shri S. S. Kakodkar, learned Counsel for the Respondent no. 1-claimant. None a...
Bhaskar Dnyanu Shinde Vs. the State of Maharashtra (to Be Served Throu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. The Appellants /original accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 who stand convicted for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 451 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months, rigorous imprisonment for six months, rigorous imprisonment for one year, rigorous imprisonment for one year, rigorous imprisonment for one year and to each accused to pay fine of Rs.300/- in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and imprisonment for life and to each accused to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years, respectively, with a direction that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently, by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, by judgment dated 7 September 1998, in Sessions Case No.86 of 1989 by this Appeal question the correctness of their conviction and sentence. 2. Briefly stated the facts as are necessary for the decision o...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »