Mumbai Court May 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.
Thotesh Gouda @ T.C.Patil and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-29-2014
(Prayer: This Crl.P Is Filed U/S.438 Of Cr.P.C Praying To Enlarge The Petitioners On Bail In The Event Of Their Arrest In Crime No.48/2014 Of Honnali P.S., Davanagere, For The Offences P/U/S 498a And 306 R/W 34 Of Ipc.) 1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking for release on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Cr.No.48/2014 registered by Nyamathi police, Honnali Taluk, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Nethra is the wife of Thotesh Gouda - petitioner No.1, after their marriage they lived at Sogilu Village and they lead a happy marital life. On 06.03.2014, she was brought to the hospital stating that she tried to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and lit fire herself and sustained grievous burnt injuries. In the hospital, her statement was recorded. On the basis of the said statement, the present case has been registered under ...
Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. Videocon Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-27-2014
1. The Plaintiff is a subsidiary of Whirlpool Corporation, a Company incorporated under the laws of the United States. According to the Plaintiff Whirlpool Corporation is one of the world's leading manufacturers of home appliances globally and a pioneer in the manufacture and sale of washing machines. According to the Plaintiff, it is a pioneer in India for washing machines and manufactures all three types of washing machines viz. semi automatic, fully automatic (top loading) and a fully automatic (front loading) targeting different segments of consumers. 2. According to the Plaintiff, it has obtained two design registrations i.e. Nos. 223833 and 223835 which are annexed at Exhibits A1 and A2 at pages 40 and 45 of the Plaint (the said designs). The said design registrations are valid, subsisting and in force for a period of ten years from 15th July, 2009, and their validity can be extended for an additional period of five years thereafter. In or about June, 2012, the Plaintiff came acr...
Manipal University and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-2014
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned regulation dated 21.5.2010 issued by the second respondent as contained m Annexure-A as ultra virus of the U.G.C. Act }956 and infringing the petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and etc,) (Prayer: These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cf India praying to declare the University Grants Commission [Institutions deemed to be Universities] Regulations 2010, [Notification No.E6-l(ll)/2006 [CPP I] dated 21.5.2010 as per Annexure-E, issued by the first respondent, to be unconstitutional and ultra virus the provisions of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and consequently declare the same to be inapplicable to the petitioner no.l University and etc; (Prayer: These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the University Grants Commis...
K. Khathim Vs. Astrix Technologies Private Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-2014
(Prayer: This Company Petition is filed under Section 433 and 433[fj of the Companies Act, 1956, praying to wind up the Company M/s. Astric Technologies Private Limited and grant such other and further reliefs as are just.) 1. The facts leading up to this petition are stated to be as follows: The petitioner is said to be an Engineering graduate, who also holds a Masters degree in Business Administration. In the year 2006, he is said to have conceived of a project in the business of manpower consultancy, owing to its need in the city of Bangalore with its growing IT Sector. Shankar, a class mate of the petitioner is also said to have evinced interest in joining the petitioner in the business. As they required adequate finance, Shankar is said to have associated one Venkatesh, a business man to invest funds. Initially, it was intended to establish a partnership firm. However, in order to enhance their image as a corporate entity, a private limited company was incorporated under the Compa...
Arathamma and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka, Department of Housing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-2014
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash notification dated 29.3.1984 passed by the third respondent bearing No.HMD 82 MIB 82 Gazetted on 31.3.1984 (produced as Annexure-D) and etc;) 1. The petitioners are said to be owners of land bearing survey no.264 measuring 6 acres 5 guntas at Hinkal, Kasaba hobli, Mysore Taluk and district. The said property is claimed to have been acquired by one Monda @ Thammaya, son of Venkata. The said property is said to have been mutated as "beellu " in the revenue records, as per Order dated 28.4.1988. Prior to the said date, the RTC in respect of the property is said to have reflected the name of Monda. The petitioners claim as the legal heirs of Monda. The second respondent is said to have issued a notification dated 1.4.1981 proposing to acquire the property bearing Survey No. 264 measuring 6 .05 acres for the purpose of formation of a residential layout, Vijayanagar extension. In the n...
Prasad P. Vishwasrao Vs. Jaisingh Gopal Rane
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-2014
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member: [1] Complainant booked a flat with the opponent on 03/04/1999. Possession was to be handed over on 31/03/2000. Complainant has paid the different amounts from time to time. Opponent denied to give possession of the flat. Complainant then insisted for the possession of the flat or new property as per the market value of the said flat. On consistent request from the complainant, opponent mortgaged flat no.201 admeasuring 770 sq.ft. at opponents proposed construction titled as Rane Towers at Saraswat Colony, Dombivali (East) till the amount is refunded. Lastly, opponent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter to be referred to as MOU) and agreed to pay the amounts on different dates. On 16/08/2002, opponent agreed to pay total amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant. As the opponent has not paid the said amount, complainant has filed this consumer complaint demanding the said amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. [2] Opponent resisted the cla...
Roshanlal Pannalal Jain/Pagaria Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-2014
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The Complainant is carrying on his business as a jeweler and valuable ornaments from his shop “ M/s. Ambika Jewellers, having its address at Rajnarayan Dube Chawl, Golibar Road, Jawahar Nagar, Santacruz, Mumbai “ 400055. The Complainant had taken an insurance policy from the Opponent “ The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company for the sake of brevity) from time to time. Risk was covered for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. On 23/11/1998, the Complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.5,95,530/- due to theft/robbery in the shop of the Complainant when the shop was closed. A police complaint was lodged about the incident with the Nirmal Nagar Police Station and accordingly a FIR was registered, which is filed on record. The incident occurred during the policy period. Hence, the Complainant lodged a claim with the Insurance Company on 25/11/1998. Insurance Company appointed one M/s. Garg and ...
M/S. Hems Apparels Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: [1] Complainant is a partnership firm engaged in carrying business in export of garments including textile and fabrics and enjoys good reputation as a Star Exporter as appreciated by the Govt. of India. The complainant has availed œStandard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy bearing no.121502/11/2006/1 to provide insurance cover to the stocks of raw material, finished products, plant, machinery and accessories, furniture, fixtures and fittings with a sum assured of Rs.90,00,000/-. Said policy was valid for the period from 07/04/2005 to 06/04/2006. Due to unprecedented rains and flooding that occurred on 26/07/2005 in and around city of Mumbai, complainants insured premises suffered damage. As a result of continuous torrential rains and flooding that lasted for more than 12 hours, supply of electricity was disconnected which was restored only on 27/07/2005. Incident was promptly reported to the opponent The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter to b...
M/S. Emco Ltd. Vs. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2014
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The Complainant has obtained an Insurance Policy from Opponent under Marine Open Cover Policy bearing No.120400/21/026/11/021548/98. The Complainant had received a purchase order on 17.12.1998 from Rajasthan State electricity Board for supply of 12.5/132 KW - 3 Phase 50 HZ Transformer oil cooled with standard spares and accessories. The same was prepared for shipment after clearance from Central Excise with Inland Transit Insurance from the Opponent. The Opponent insured the same under Marine All Risk - Inland Transit from Thane to Sagwara, Rajasthan for Rs.43,68,862/- and corresponding premium was paid by the Complainant. The goods reached the destination on 09.06.1998 but the material was in damaged condition, while in transit which was observed on 11.06.1999 as evident from M/s. RSEBs inspection report. Since the goods were misfit for use which were returned for repair. Opponent held Insurance Survey on 13.06.1999 through their Surveyor M/s....
M.K. Shihab Moidheen Kutty Vs. M/S. Mahaavir Enterprises
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. The Complainant had booked a Flat No.G-1201 in Mahaavir Heritage, located at Plot No.3, Sector 35G Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, the project developed by the Opponent Mahaaavir Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as œthe Opponent? for the sake of brevity) for total consideration of Rs.26,20,000/-. An amount of Rs.25,38,675/- has already been paid against the total consideration. However, no agreement has been executed nor possession delivered. In between demand notice dated 09.11.2012 issued by the Opponent builder developer demanding outstanding amount of Rs.7,48,840/-. Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- through the Bank transfer and approached for possession. However, the Opponent issued termination notice dated 9thNovember, 2012 thereby canceling the allotment of the said flat as the amount claimed under the demand notice has not been allegedly paid in time by the Complainant. Aggrieved thereby the Complainant has filed this consumer complaint...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »