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.
Gopal Dattu Pal Vs. Administrator of Communidade of Bardez and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
1. The Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge (FTC), Mapusa, in Civil Suit no. 70/2005 on 05.01.2008, dismissing the suit filed by the Plaintiffs. 2. The Plaintiff has filed the Civil Suit praying for the Decree for declaration that the allotment of the suit plots 'A' and 'D' made by the original defendant nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9 in favour of the original defendant nos. 3 and 6 are illegal and void and for directions to the defendant nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9 to revoke the allotment of the said plots. The Plaintiff had further sought decree for declaration that the construction licence issued by the original defendant no. 7 in favour of the original defendant no. 3 is illegal and void and for directions to the defendant no. 7 to revoke the construction licence dated 12.08.2005. The Plaintiff sought for decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant no. 3 to demolish the structure constructed by the defendant no. 3 in the suit plot 'A'. The ...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sundari Krishna Naik ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
1. Heard Ms. Kalyankar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1, and Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22/04/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao ('Claims Tribunal') in Claims Petition No. 195/2011. 3. In the said Claims Petition, appellant was respondent no. 3; respondent no.1 was the claimant; respondent no. 2 was the respondent no. 1 (driver) and respondent no. 3 was the respondent no. 2 (owner of the vehicle). Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Claims Petition. 4. The claimant had filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of total amount of Rs. 6,59,000/- on account of injuries, resulting in permanent disability, sustained by her in a motor vehicular accident. 5. Case of the claimant ...
Anup Singh and Another Vs. Benizi V. M. Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that interim orders passed on 13.2.2014 and 11.3.2014, which are based upon the order passed on 22.10.2013 are arbitrary with the first order dated 22.10.2013 also being an arbitrary order. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that these orders are required to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Learned counsel who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6 states that main application for grant of temporary injunction itself is now posted for hearing at 2.30p.m and he would have no objection, if the main application is directed to be heard and disposed of expeditiously. 6. Incidentally, respondent no. 3 is also power of attorney holder for remaining respondents except respondent no. 9. Since respondent no. 3 practically represents all the respondents except respondent no. 9, statement so made by him can be taken to be ...
Mahesh Vasant Salunke Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Appellant Mahesh (accused no.1) faced the Sessions trial bearing Sessions Case No. 75 of 2011 before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, along with his parents Vasant (accused no.2) and Latabai (accused no.3), for the offence punishable under Sections 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Mahesh was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon vide judgment, dated 20.10.2011 was pleased to acquit all of them in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict appellant Mahesh for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellant Mahesh-original accused no.1 is taking exception to...
Pundalik Bhandari Vs. State (Through P. I. Curchorem Police Station)
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
1. Heard Mr. Pavithran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 2. The appellant was the accused in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2011 and has preferred this appeal against the Judgment dated 21/01/2013 and further judgment, Order and Sentence dated 22/01/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, South Goa, Margao (Trial Court, for short) in the said Sessions Case. 3. Curchorem Police had filed the charge sheet against accused for offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned J.M.F.C., Sanguem by order dated 28/06/2011 committed the case to the Sessions Court and it was allotted to the Trial Court. The case of the prosecution, in short, was that on 28/08/2009 at 15.00 hours at Madel, Sanvordem, the accused assaulted...
Manguesh Devasthan Vs. Krishna Gawade (Since Deceased) Through Legal H ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9.2.2004 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 219/2003 thereby dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2003 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 48/2003 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda, dismissing the suit of the appellant. 2. The appellant had filed a suit against the respondents claiming reliefs that the appellant be declared as owner in possession of the suit property and that Mamlatdar or appropriate authority be directed to correct the survey records by deleting the entry entered into the tenant's column showing husband of respondent no.1 to be the tenant of only paddy field forming part of the suit property bearing survey no. 24/3 of village Priol of Ponda Taluka. 3. It was the contention of the appellant that appellant was the owner in possession of the suit property since more than 100 years and when...
Rekha Agarwal and Another Vs. Anil Agarwal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
1. The Appellants/Petitioners challenge an order passed by a Sole Arbitrator under Section-16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (œAct?) upholding the Respondents' objection to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes referred to arbitration. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to in this order with reference to their respective designations in Arbitration Petition No.257 of 2013. 2. The Petitioner and Respondents were partners in a firm by the name of M/s Laxmi Centre. The firm was constituted under a Deed of Partnership dated 25 June 1976, a further Deed of Partnership dated 7 September 1985 and a Supplementary Deed of Partnership dated 4 March 1997. The partnership was at will. There was an arbitration clause in the Deed. Disputes and differences arose between the parties. A dissolution notice was served by the Petitioner on the Respondents. Subsequently, the Petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement between the parties and...
Santosh Sajo Malik and Others Vs. Prakash Mahadev Malik and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Court in Civil Suit No.19 of 2005 on 31/1/2008 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit praying for decree for declaration that the members of two Malik families of Hassapur are the Mahajans of the œShri Sateri Devasthan Hassapur-Waddi? and are sole owners of the Devasthan property surveyed under survey no.405/1 of Hassapur village. They prayed for decree directing the Bandhkam Samiti members, the defendants no. 1 to 4 to render the accounts of construction/renovation of the temple of the Devasthan. They further prayed for decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their officers, servants, agents or any person or persons acting through or under them from interfering in any manner with the ownership rights of the Mahajans of the Devasthan of Shri Sateri Hassapur Wadi. They further prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, thei...
Rohinton Panthaky and Others Vs. ArmIn R. Panthaky
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
1. In Notice of Motion No.6 of 2014, leave to intervene granted in terms of prayer (a) limited to the present hearing, as the applicants are the trustees of the Parsi Panchayet Funds and Properties and have sought to make submissions on a question of law. Motion disposed of in these terms. I | The Issue at Hand 2. In a suit under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, does the Court have the discretion to direct that evidence be recorded before a Commissioner under Order 18 Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or must it only be recorded in Court with delegates present? There were, it seems, conflicting views on this question. Some courts permitted evidence to be recorded before a Commissioner. By an order dated 13th April 2012 in Jasmine Cusrow Damania v Cusrow Minoo Damania,1 a learned single Judge of this Court concluded that question was at least debatable, and left it open. In Damaniav Damania, part of the evidence was taken on commission. The defendant applied for h...
M/S. Lithos Estate Dev.Pvt.Ltd. and Another Vs. Champaklal N. Jogi as ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29/06/2010, original opponent no.1 has filed Appeal no.A/10/1061, whereas original complainant has filed Appeal no.A/10/1013. Vide impugned order original opponent no.1 is directed to deliver possession of flat no.1802, Kent Garden, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092 to the complainant within a month from the date of the order or in the alternative to pay Rs.1000/- per day as fine in addition to compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and costs of Rs.5,000/-. Original complainant has preferred an appeal directing opponent no.1 to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of deposit from 31/12/1998 till upto one month after the date of order. Facts which are material for deciding these appeals are as under:- On 20/06/1998, the complainant booked a flat with the appellant and an agreement was executed between the parties on that date but it was not registered. The complainant claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- towards...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »