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.
Bulk Ship Management S.E.A. Incorporated under the laws of Republic Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2014
1 The Plaintiff has filed this suit under the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court seeking arrest, sequestration, condemnation and sale of the bunkers that was on board the 2nd defendant vessel and arrest and deposit of freight due for transportation for cargo that was laden on 2nd defendant, which was at the Port of Mumbai (the 1st defendant) at that time for securing Plaintiff's claim in arbitration proceedings. The suit was filed for arrest of 1st defendant towards security of the claim in the arbitration proceedings. 2 By an order dated 7th January, 2013, this Court was pleased to pass an order for arrest of the 1st defendant, viz., Bunkers on board the 2nd defendant-vessel alongwith freight due for transportation of cargo laden. The Defendant No.3 filed a Notice of Motion for vacating the order of arrest. It was the case of Defendant No.3 that out of the entire quantity of bunkers on board the 2nd defendant-vessel, only bunkers in the value of USD 69,532/- were under their ownersh...
Sanjay Madanchand Kashyap Vs. Moolchand Saheblal Kashyap
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner has questioned legality and validity of order dt. 4.1.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No.769 of 2012 by which application Exh.19 for dismissal of the suit was rejected and application Exh. Nos. 20 and 21 are allowed and summons was directed to be issued against defendant nos. 5 to 9, 11 and 14 on payment of process fees. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: Special Civil Suit No.769 of 2012 for partition, separate possession and damages was filed. The plaintiff had claimed 1/7th share in the suit property with a prayer for preliminary decree, inquiry into mesne profit, cost of the suit etc. The said suit was instituted by Moolchand Saheblal Kashyap against fifteen persons given family history and relationship between the parties alleging that Saheblal (father of the plaintiff) was karta of the joint hindu family....
Shrirang Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2014
[1] On 3rd February, 2001 the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded partly allowed Cri.Appeal No.29/1995, preferred on behalf of the present applicant and remanded the matter back for re-trial. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order, the applicant has filed present Cri.Revn.Appln. [2] Few facts leading to the present proceedings are as under:- [i] Present applicant is the Proprietor of M/s. Arun Products, Kaluji Tekdi, Old Mondha, Nanded. Said firm deals in spices, chilly powder, turmeric powder and likewise products. Mr. Dastagir Chandarlal Shaikh, Food Inspector, Nanded visited the said firm on 21st June, 1991 alongwith the panchas and collected the sample in presence of the applicant. The turmeric powder of which the sample were taken by the Food Inspector, after following due process it was sent for its analysis. The required notice U/Section 14(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [In short, the P.F.A.Act, 1954] was also given to the present applicant. After receip...
Rajesh Hariba Patil Vs. Ranjana Rajesh Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2014
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, original petitioner. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 16th January 2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kolhapur in Petition No.342 of 2014 preferred by the petitioner (appellant herein) for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. By the said judgment and order his petition came to be dismissed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, original petitioner. We have perused the judgment and decree dated 16th January 2014 passed by the Family Court, Kolhapur and the pleadings and evidence led in this case. It is seen that the appellant has preferred the petition for divorce under Section 13(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. There are various provisions under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting divorce. There are various clauses under which divorce can be sought and under which clause the petition is filed by the appellant is...
Shamsunder Vs. Union of India, Central Ground Water Board, Ministry of ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-08-2014
S.B. Shukre, J. 1. By these petitions, the petitioners have sought protection of their services with the establishment of respondent No.3, which is Central Ground Water Board, Nagpur. (a) It is the contention of the petitioners that they were appointed as Lower Division Clerks against the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. The petitioners were granted certificates by the concerned Magistrates certifying their caste claim as belonging to Halba community. (b) The respondents by multiple communications called upon the petitioners to submit documents for the purpose of verification of their caste certificates. The petitioners submitted the documents that were available with them. It appears that respondents were not satisfied with the documents submitted and, therefore, respondents again called upon the petitioners to submit further documents. The petitioners responded by saying that they had already submitted the necessary documents that were available with them and that n...
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Divisional Office and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
1. Both the appeals are admitted. Notice after admission made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. Both the appeals are filed against judgment and order of W.C.A. No. 42/2011, which was pending before the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('the Act' for short). In an application filed by the injured, the compensation of Rs. 1,94,430/- is awarded by the Commissioner and order is made against both the employer and the Insurance Company to pay the penalty of 50% amount of compensation. Interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded on the compensation amount, but it is awarded from 19.7.2011 and not from the date of accident. The injured claimant has filed First Appeal No. 3037/2013 to challenge the quantum and also the period from which the interest is made payable. The Insurance Company has challenged the decision against the order of penalty and also against the calculation of compensation. 3. The injured was working...
Asif Khan Vs. Shahanazbee and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
Oral Judgment 1. By the present Revision, the applicant is challenging the order, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition E-470 of 1998, whereby the learned court below was pleased to direct the present applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.200/- per month to respondent no.1 and Rs.100/- per month to respondent no.2 from the date of filing of the petition i.e. from 20.7.1998 2. None for the applicant. I have heard Smt. A.N. Ansari, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri V.H.Dighe, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.3. 3. It is to be mentioned here that by judgment and order, dated 16.4.1999, the learned Family Court disposed of two petitions by the common judgment. 4. Petition A-484 of 1997 was filed on behalf of the present applicant against respondent no.1 for restitution of conjugal rights. Petition E-470 of 1998 was filed on behalf of present respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the present applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fo...
Sayyed Khalil Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
[1] The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 3rd January, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 2, Nanded, in Sessions Case No.184 Of 2011, by which the learned court below was pleased to convict the appellant / accused for the offence punishable U/Section 376[1] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [In short, the I.P.Code] and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- [Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only] and in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable U/Section 506 of the I.P.Code and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- [Rs.One Thousand only] and in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two months. The court below directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The court below further directed that, if entire fine amount is deposited in the co...
Shamsundersingh Lalsingh Thakur (deceased) through his LRs. and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Petitioners (plaintiffs) made application (exhibit 132) for permission to examine Krishna Bhonde who is attesting witness to Will dated 15.3.1980 produced by defendant. Defendant on 13.2.2014 kept in attendance both the attesting witnesses. However, he examined only one out of two attesting witnesses viz. Rambhau Bagde and gave up other attesting witness viz. Krishna Bhonde. 3. Learned trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the matter is old and the suit is already fixed for final arguments. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if remaining attesting witness to the Will is examined and petitioners are ready to bear the expenses for summoning that witness. 5. Learned counsel for respondent (defendant) supported the impugned order. He contended that such application was not tenable at the final argument stage. 6. In my considered view, applic...
The Shriram Education Society, Dharampeth, Nagpur, thr. Its Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Second Appeal No.19/2013 has been filed by original plaintiff, The Shriram, Education Society, Dharampeth, Nagpur and ors., feeling aggrieved by rejection of the cross-objection that was filed before the lower appellate court in Reg. C. A. No.766/2012 for claiming the relief of declaration that was not granted by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 02.03.1993 in Spl. C. S.No.823/1987. 2. Second appeal No.168/2013 has been filed by original defendant-Nagpur Improvement Trust, against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Judge in Spl. C. S. No.823/1987 decided on 02.03.1993 and confirmed by judgment and decree dated 05.11.2012 in Reg. C. A. No.766/2012 by learned District Judge-11, Nagpur, by which the suit filed by the original plaintiffs was partly decreed restraining the defendant-Nagpur Improvement Trust from dispossessing the plaintiffs except by due process of law. FACTS: 3. The original plaintiffs, The Shriram Education Society, (hereinafter r...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »