Mumbai Court July 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.
Hansraj Nayyar Medical India Vs. Smith Medical International Limited a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2014
1. This is a suit filed for anti-suit injunction restraining the Defendants from proceeding before the Commercial Court in England in respect of the claim filed by them against the Plaintiff herein, being Claim No.2013 Folio 1380. The Notice of Motion seeks an interim order of injunction in the same terms. 2 The Plaintiff is a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of selling and marketing medical products. Defendant No.1 is a company incorporated in England having its registered office at Ashford, Kent. Defendant No.1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing and production of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. Defendant No.2 is an Indian company, said to be a subsidiary of Defendant No.1. 3 By an Exclusive Distribution Agreement dated 16 May 2011 (EDA), the Plaintiff was appointed as an Exclusive Distributor for resale of the products of Defendant No.1 in a defined territory, namely, India, Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives. The Plaintiff was to import and distribute the p...
Santosh Prakash Jadhao and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-09-2014
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. The appellants were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 201, 203 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in alternative under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.93/2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Buldana. By a judgment and order dated 30.4.2011, the appellants came to be convicted for the offences as charged. For the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable under Section 304-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under ...
Kamlesh Raghunath Mahalodha Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellant, original accused, has questioned the correctness of his conviction and sentence by the present appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 20th December 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar, in Sessions Case No.69 of 2010 thereby convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The facts which can be enumerated from the record, may briefly be stated thus: PW-6 Shri Hemantkumar Patil, the Police Sub-Inspector, on 20.6.2010 was attached to Boisar Police Station, District Thane. On 20.6.2010, PW-2 Sakubai Ghatal came to the police station and informed PW-6 P.S.I. Shri Patil about the death of her daughter. PW-2 Sakubai informed the police officer that Smt. Rasu was her daughter. That Smt. Rasu was married to the a...
CR Retail Malls (India) Limited Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authorit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2014
1) Rule with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 21st March, 2013 passed by the Respondent No. 1 herein i.e. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune, by which order, the Petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 91,66,800/( Rupees ninety one lacs sixty six thousand eight hundred only) as the deficit stamp duty in respect of the document being the Indenture of SubLease (for short the Indenture) which was got registered by the Petitioner. 3) The facts giving rise to the above Petition can be stated thus: The Petitioner is engaged in the business of operating multiscreen multiplex for exhibition of cinemas and operates the seven screen multiplex cinema unit at Block No. 43 and 43A, Phoenix Mills Compound, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, bearing CTS No. 1/142, 71 and 109, Lower Parel, M...
Ramchandra Guja Rewatkar Vs. Mango Vithya Koche, An Adult, Since decea ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri P.A. Markandeywar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Executing Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of possession as per the decree of specific performance of contract, in favour of the petitioner. Initially, the petitioner had challenged the impugned order in revision under Section-115 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide Civil Revision Application No.737 of 1999. When the revision was listed for final hearing, the learned Advocate for the respondents had raised the objection that the civil revision application was not maintainable and this Court by the order dated 04.09.2013 allowed the petitioner to convert the civil revision application into writ petition. The petitioner has, accordingly, taken steps and now this writ petition is listed for final hearing. 3. After the petitioner had converted the civil revision application in to ...
Asha Vs. Rashmi Trilokchandra Hedaoo and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter by consent of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Though served, none appeared for the respondents. The respondents remained absent. 3. The petitioner questions the legality, propriety, and correctness of impugned order dated 15.1.2014, passed by learned Seventh Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Wardha, below Exh.38, in pending Regular Civil Suit No.122 of 2013, whereby the application for permission to file the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant was rejected. In the result, therefore, the defendant was deprived of filing written statement though it was pleaded that due to intermittent ailment of defendant No.1, written statement could not be filed earlier. 4. The contention is, the petitioner/defendant had moved an application on 8.1.2014 for setting aside no written statement order, passed on 10.10.2013, and sought permission to file the written statement on the ground that since t...
Naziruddin Khan s/o Mumtazuddin Khan Since deceased through Legal Repr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2014
1. Admit. 2. Notice after admission made returnable forthwith. By consent heard both the sides for final disposal. 3. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Special Civil Suit No.487 of 1998 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. The trial Court has given decree of specific performance of contract in favour of respondent No.1. It is ex parte decree. 4. The suit was filed in respect of two agricultural lands bearing Gat Nos.155 and 209 situated at village Teesgaon, Tahsil and District Aurangabad. It is the case of plaintiff that defendants had agreed with him to sell the suit property in the month of December 1993 and the terms and conditions of the agreement were reduced into writing and were signed by the defendant No.1 for himself and as Power of Attorney for defendant Nos.2 to 4 and defendant No.9. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are brothers inter se. Defendant No.4 is the wife of deceased brother of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and defendant N...
LandT Finance Limited Vs. M/s. Saumya Mining Ltd and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Petitioner has filed these four petitions under section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim measures. The respondents have raised various issues which are common in all the four matters. By consent of parties, all the four matters are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Some of the relevant facts of the above four matters are as under : Arbitration Petition No.290 of 2014 (a) Respondent no.1 is borrower. Respondent no.2 is a guarantor to the loan obtained by respondent no.1. The respondent no. 3 and 4 are the debtors of respondent no.1 and 2 and have been joined as parties to secure the claim of the petitioner against respondent no.1 and 2. (b) On 31st December, 2011 the petitioner and the respondent no.1 and 2 entered into a loan agreement. Petitioner granted loan of Rs.28,35,000/- to the respondent no.1 and 2 on the terms and conditions described in the said agreement. Respondent no.1 executed demand promissory note on ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kawdu
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-08-2014
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the State challenging acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts are that P.W.1 - Kalidas Uikey is the uncle of the respondent/original accused no.1. The charge-sheet was filed against the respondent and his brother Kailas Uikey, who was then found to be juvenile in conflict with law (J.C.L.) and as such, his case was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board. The trial proceeded only against respondent Kawdu before the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur bearing Sessions Case No.113/1998. According to the prosecution, the houses of P.W.1 -Kalidas and his brother Ramdas who is the father of the respondent are adjacent to each other, situated at village Meha (Khurd), Taluka Saoli, District : Chandrapur. Deceased Saraswatibai was the wife of P.W.1-Kalidas. The incident in question had occurred on 9.4.1998 at about 9:00 p.m. It is said that she-goats of Kalidas ha...
Uttam Vs. Babita and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Uttam s/o Kisan Pawar felt aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 6th February, 2001 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No.A-721/1999, by which the learned Judge, Family court was pleased to allow the Petition partly, filed on behalf of present Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the court below was pleased to direct the present applicant to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.500/- to Resp.No.1 from the month of December, 1999 onwards and also directed that, from the month of December, 1999, the applicant to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.250/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. I have heard Mr. S.A. Dhengle, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in extenso. I have also heard Mr. Bhange, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.4. Though Resp.Nos. 1 to 3 are served, nobody appeared on their behalf. 3. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the court below had committed serious mistake in granting maintenance allowance...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »