Mumbai Court June 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.
Rohan M. Kapoor and Others Vs. Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged an order dated 10.01.2011 passed by the arbitrator appointed by the Central Registrar, Co-operative Societies under section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (hereafter referred to as the said Act) conditionally attaching a flat originally owned by one Mahendra Kapoor. The impugned order provided that the attachment would stand automatically vacated if the petitioners deposited Rs.1,50,00,000/- with the first respondent bank within a period of eight seeks. The five petitioners are the legal heirs of the said Mahendra Kapoor. The petitioners among others, are opponents in the proceedings. 2. Respondent No.1 is the disputant in the arbitration case. Respondent No.1 had granted respondent No.2 - M/s.Jai Shanti Dye Prints Pvt. Ltd., a cash credit facility. Respondent No.3 M/s.Monitex Dye Prints is a partnership firm in which the deceased Mahendra Kapoor was a partner. Respondent Nos.4 to 9 are the partners of respo...
Babush Vs. State and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. The present writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself considering that the issue involved in the matter is very small and in fact need not have much elaboration to be done inasmuch as what has been challenged in the present writ petition is the concurrent orders passed by the Deputy Collector dated 24/9/2013 and the order dated 19/3/2014 passed by the Appellate Authority. 2. The main dispute in the present matter is regarding the apprehension in the mind of the present respondent/original complainant that the coconut tree which is grown in the property belonging to the present petitioner is in a ruinous condition and may fall at any time over the property occupied and belonging to the original complainant/present respondent no.4. Without going into much details as to whether the said house property of respondent no.4 is legal or illegal, suffice it to say that present resp...
Ishwar Gulab Pawar, Died through his L.Rs. and Others Vs. Ayoub Jamal ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
1. The appeal was admitted on 20.8.2004. Today, by consent, heard the learned counsel for appellant/original claimant and learned counsel for Insurance Company for final disposal. The other learned counsel for respondent No. 2 did not turn up. 2. The appeal is filed by original claimant against the judgment and order of WCA No. 81/1999, which was filed before the Labour Court, Ahmednagar (Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923). The proceeding was filed for compensation in respect of injuries sustained by the claimant in motor vehicle accident and the accident had taken place during the course of his employment with respondent No. 1, owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2, Insurance Company and the accident took place on 18.3.1999. 3. It is the case of appellant/claimant that he sustained fracture injury to one leg and also to one hand and due to fracture injuries, he cannot work as a driver. He has contended that he had given the evidence acco...
Jayantilal L. Shah Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 10 August 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal") rejecting the petitioner's application for rectification under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). By its application for rectification dated 5 January 2012 the petitioner sought to recall and rectify the errors in the order dated 22 January 2009 passed by the Tribunal for block assessment period 1 April 1990 to 26 February 2001. 2. The petitioner's application for rectification before the Tribunal was fixed for hearing on 3 December 2008. At that time the petitioner sought an adjournment. At the request of the petitioner the petitioner's application for rectification was adjourned to 7 January 2009. On 7 January 2009, when the matter was called out none appeared on behalf of the petitioner nor was there any application on record for adjournment. The Tribunal considered the petitioner's application on mer...
Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al-Abduyllah Al-Sabah and Another Vs. Sanjay Mish ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2014
1. Show cause notice for having committed contempt in the face of the Court has been issued to defendant No.1 and his Advocate on record in the above suit. The notice is issued under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 14 runs thus: 14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court.(1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall (a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged; (b) afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge; (c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the mat...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Through the Municipal Commiss ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2014
1 This matter was listed from time to time. We have heard all the Counsel including the Counsel in other matters which were listed along with this matter for their respective suggestions. We have also heard the learned Advocate General and Counsel for MHADA. 2 This Petition has been filed by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai seeking prayers against the State of Maharashtra and concerned police personnel to take steps for forcible eviction of the occupants of the building known as Sohansingh Mansion as also other buildings which are declared to be dilapidated and dangerous by the Corporation and to issue appropriate guidelines for removal of non-cooperating occupants of dilapidated and dangerous buildings. According to the Corporation, these guidelines are necessary so as to avoid any untoward incidents of loss of lives of the occupants of the said buildings, as well as, occupants of the adjoining structures and passersby. 3 Sometimes owners/builders are non-cooperative and fail t...
Mohanlal Ruchandmal Pahlajani Vs. Manoharlal Rewachand Hablani and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-23-2014
Oral Judgment. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the petition by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. The writ petitioner/defendant in Special Civil Suit No.133 of 2013 pending before the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati, preferred this petition impugning the order passed by the trial Court permitting the respondents/plaintiffs to carry out the amendment in the plaint. 3. The facts of the case are, thus: Special Civil Suit No.133 of 2013 was instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs against the petitioner/defendant for sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as damages payable along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The suit was instituted on the ground that the respondents/plaintiffs are socially reputed persons with reputed business and social activities. They had progressed in their business and carried the business in the name and style as Aaradhana in Satidham Market, Amravati. 4. It is alleged that petitioner/defendant who is an...
Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al-Abduyllah Al-Sabah and Another Vs. Sanjay Mish ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2014
1. Show cause notice for having committed contempt in the face of the Court has been issued to defendant No.1 and his Advocate on record in the above suit. The notice is issued under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 14 runs thus: 14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court.(1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall (a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged; (b) afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge; (c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the mat...
V.I.P. Industries Ltd. Vs. VIP Employees' Union and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2014
P.C. :- 1. Rule. By consent of the parties the writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside an order dated 15.10.2013 passed by the Minister of Labour, Government of Maharashtra. 3. Respondent No.1 is the recognized union. Respondent No.2 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent Nos.3 to 8 are the petitioner's employees, who had filed a representation dated 29.01.2013 before the Minister of Labour, State of Maharashtra. 4. On 16.05.2000, a settlement had been arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.1 under which the age of retirement remained at 58 years. The settlement was terminated and a fresh charter of demands was served upon the petitioner. On 27.06.2003, the petitioners issued a notice of change under section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. One of the changes sought was a reversion in the age of retirement at 56 years. It is not necessary for the purpose of this writ petition t...
Kalyan Mahipati Madne Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2014
1. The present Revision is filed against the judgment and order of conviction, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karjat, District Ahmednagar, dated 29.9.1997, in Regular Criminal Case No.12 of 1991, together with the judgment and order, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, dated 17.7.2000, in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 1997. 2. Herein under, the facts leading to the present Revision can be stated :- On 30.1.1991, Dnyandev Sarjerao Gabale, resident of Babhulgaon Khalsa, Taluka Karjat reached to the police station, Karjat and lodged his report. The said report is at Exh. 36. Report lodged by the first informant reveals that he is cousin of one Vishwanath Namdeo Kadam, who also resides in the same village along with his family, though separately. Kalyan Mahipati Madne (applicant) is residing in front of the house of Vishwanath Kadam. On account of timber business, there was dispute amongst Vishwanath and Kalyan since last so many days, however, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »