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.
Vijendra B. Singh Vs. Uma Vijendra Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
S.C. Gupte, J. 1. The appeal impugns a Judgment and decree passed by the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai dismissing the Appellant-husband's petition for divorce under Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (œAct?). 2. The Appellant and Respondent were married on 22 April 1996. A baby girl was born to them in the following year. Since 8 April 1997 the couple started living separately. In 1998, the Respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court. On 3 October 2002, the petition was decreed. The parties did not cohabit even thereafter. On or about 22 September 2003, an execution application was filed by the Respondent. On 23 November 2003, during the pendency of that execution application, the Appellant filed the present petition for divorce under Section 13(1A) of the Act. The petition was dismissed by the Family Court on 23 August 2006. This appeal challenges that dismissal order. 3. Admittedly during the period of one year of the decr...
Namdeo Vanji Bachav and Another Vs. Dhule District Central Co-operativ ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective sides. 2. Both these petitions are being heard together. 3. The petitioner in the first petition is the employee. The respondent is the employer. In the 2nd petition, the petitioner is the employer bank and the respondent is the employee. Since both these petitions challenge the same judgments of the Labour Court, Dhule and the Industrial Court, Dhule the petitions can be heard together. 4. By orders dated 13th of December 2011, both these petitions were admitted. The statement of the employer that the employee has already been reinstated in service was recorded by this Court. Since back wages were denied by the Industrial Court, no interim relief was granted to the employer. 5. After hearing the learned advocates for the employer and the employee, the facts of the case can be summarised as follows; “ (a) The employee had joined the employer in 1990 as an Assistant in the Clerical grade. (b) On 28th May 2005, the employee submitte...
Sau. Sandhya Hemant Salunke Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner is elected as Member of Walwadi Gram Panchayat in the elections held in 2010. The term, as a Member, is to last for five years. The petitioner, thereafter, contested the elections for the position of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat and was elected as such. 5. Respondents 5 and 6, defeated candidates, lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 20.7.2012 alleging encroachment. It was numbered as Gram panchayat Dispute No.13 of 2012. The said complaint was heard by the Additional Collector. By an order dated 8.10.2012, the Additional Collector was pleased to hold that the complaint had no merits. It was concluded that the petitioner had not encroached upon the public premises or the Government land and had, therefore, not incurred a disqualification, as a Member of the Gram Panchayat, as contemplated...
M/S Reshmi Constructions Vs. Laxman Vithal Chunekar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Shet, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of respondent no.1. 2. This Revision Application was initially filed as Criminal Appeal No. 80/2009 which was admitted by order dated 16/11/2009. Revision Application stands admitted and by consent is heard forthwith. 3. This revision application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15/05/2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ponda ('Trial Magistrate') in Criminal Case No. 389/OA/2006/B. 4. The revision applicant was the complainant in the said criminal case whereas respondent no.1 was the accused. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said criminal case. 5. The complainant, the Partnership Firm represented by its partner, namely Shri Pandharinath Chafadkar, had filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('N. I. Act') against the accused. It was a...
Gurudas Hari Dhekne Vs. Rucmini Laxmidas
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
1. By this petition, the judgment and order dated 4/03/2011, passed by President, Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, Goa in Eviction Appeal no.28/1995, has been challenged. 2. The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent and, since, he had fallen in arrears of rent for a period of more than three months and, since, he did not pay the arrears of rent within 30 days of the receipt of the registered notice served upon him by the respondent, respondent filed an application dated 2/08/1990 before the Additional Rent Controller, Ponda, Goa under Section 22(2)(a) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Act') for eviction of the premises. 3. The application was resisted by the petitioner stating that the rent fell in arrears because of refusal of the respondent to accept the rent whenever it was attempted to be paid to her. The petitioner contended that reason for refusal to accept the rent by the respondent w...
Sayyed Sultan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
K.U. Chandiwal, J. 1. The appellants assail conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli in Sessions Case No.110 Of 2010 for the offence punishable U/Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, directing to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- [Rs. Five Hundred only] with default stipulation. 2. Criminal Appeal is admitted on 17th December, 2011. FACTS (i) Deceased Rizwanabee was the wife of the appellant - Sayyed Sultan. Their marriage was performed before seventeen [17] years, prior to the incident dated 9th August, 2010. Out of the wedlock, the couple was blessed with two sons. The grievance of the Complainant (father of the deceased Rizwanbee) was, the appellant and acquitted accused persistently demanded money for construction of house. He gave an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant, three months prior to the incident. The appellant questioned and felt his wife allegedly was speaking on telephone with others. This ann...
Arun Vs. Sangmeshwar Tractor Authorized Dealer Ahmedpur Through Its Pr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally by the consent of the parties. 3. The issue raised by the petitioner in this petition is with reference to an order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission' for brevity). 4. The petitioner had filed a First Appeal No. 481/2009, before the State Commission. On 21-11-2013, the State Commission dismissed the appeal in view of the appellant as well his Counsel remaining absent. The said appeal was, therefore, dismissed in default (DID). 5. The petitioner further contends that he attempted to file an application on the same date before the State Commission for filing of his Vakil Patra and recalling of the order of dismissal in default (DID) passed by the State Commission. However, according to the petitioner, the said applicatio...
Sjj Marine Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pisces Exim (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
1. The Plaintiff has sued under the written agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 dated 18th July, 2012, Exh.F to the plaint. Under that agreement defendant No.1 confirmed payment by it for discharging certain freight charges and charges of demurrage and detention of certain goods of certain vessels of the plaintiff. The parties agreed to discharge the goods upon which the plaintiff had a lien upon such payment being made by defendant No.1. The parties also agreed that they would discuss discharge and the payment schedule if the payment specified under the agreement was not made. The plaintiff was to discharge a part of the goods upon which the plaintiff has claimed lien upon the confirmation of the written agreement dated 18th July, 2012 itself. The plaintiff was shown as Party A in the agreement; defendant No.1 was shown as Party B. 2. The relevant clauses of the agreement run thus: "1. Party B confirm that they would be paying the discharge port Demurrage / Detention of...
Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat Vs. Bindumadhav
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
1. This Appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 28-05-2010, in Reg. Civil Suit No. 1 of 2010, which was pending in the court of District Judge, Aurangabad. The plaint of the appellant-original plaintiff is returned by the District Court, Aurangabad for presentation before appropriate court. 2. Both sides are heard finally. 3. The suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff for relief of declaration and injunction against the respondent. A declaration was sought that the plaintiff is owner of the association, named and styled as œAkhilBharitya Grahak Panchayat?. It is the case of the plaintiff that monogram œGarud? (Eagle) as described in the title clause of the suit belongs to plaintiff-Association. Relief of injunction was claimed to prevent the defendant from using aforesaid name of the association and monogram by the defendant. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff-Association was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in the year 1...
Saraswati Suryaji Mamlekar and Others Vs. Suryaji Shankar Mamlekar and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Second Appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 12/04/2013 passed by the learned District Judge-I Panaji (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No.485 of 2010. By the impugned Judgment, said appeal was allowed with the result that the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 01/11/2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda (Trial Court) in Regular Civil Suit No. 155/2000/B (New): Regular Civil Suit No.14/1989 (Old) came to be quashed and set aside and consequently the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs stood dismissed. 3. The present appellants were the plaintiffs in the said Civil Suit whereas the respondents were the defendants therein. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit for declaration tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »