Mumbai Court September 2014 Judgments
Madhusudanlal Narayanlal Pittie Vs. Maheshchandra Agarwal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2014
1. The applicant, shown as third party, has taken out this Chamber Summons against the parties to the suit as also other respondents who are shown as third party respondents. The Chamber Summons is for declaration that the termination of the development agreement dated 16th December, 2003, Power of Attorney dated 22nd May, 2002 and certain other documents is unreasonable, unenforceable and illegal, for appointment of Court Receiver for various directions and for injunction against private receiver appointed in the suit property. 2. The suit filed in 1961 came to be decreed under consent terms signed by the parties on 28th April, 2008. The defendant No.4 was appointed private receiver. He is one of the co-owners of the suit properties. He had to develop one of the suit properties. He had entered into an MOU with the Director of the applicant on 21st May, 2002 and a development agreement on 16th December, 2003 and executed a POA in his favour. The rights and obligations of the applicant ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rehman Adamji Shaikh Since deceased through Legal Heirs Vs. Bhur ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2014
P.C. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24th June 1992 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Thane in Regular Civil Appeal No.142 of 1991 by which the lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 11th April 1991 passed by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.56 of 1989 and dismissed the suit that was decreed by the Trial Court. 2. In support of the appeal, the learned counsel for the Appellant landlord submitted that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act do not have any application to the suit premises and therefore the Appellant landlord had issued a notice to the Respondent Defendant under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TP Act) terminating the tenancy of the Respondent and then since the premises were not vacated, the suit was brought by the Appellant Plaintiff. The learned Trial Judge held that the Appellant Plaintiff was entitled to possession of the suit property and also that rent was due from 1989 till possession. H...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. K.M. Enterprises Vs. M/s. Garware Synthetics Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2014
1. Applications for leave to appeal are allowed. Admit appeals. Appeals to be numbered accordingly. By consent, the appeals are called out forthwith and heard finally, at the stage of admission 2. In all these 13 appeals, the parties are same with same status i.e., the appellant company is the original complainant and the respondents are the original accused. All these criminal cases were filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheques issued by the respondents in favour of the complainant were dishonoured. Out of these 13 cases, 9 cases are decided by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Mumbai by the judgement and order dated 29.11.2011 and the other four matters are decided by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai by judgment and order dated 9.1.2014. In all these criminal cases, the respondents are acquitted and, therefore, these appeals are preferred by the original complainant challenging these judgments ...
Tag this Judgment!Maria Alvita Veneziana Dias E Menezes @ Alvita Menezes Since deceased ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Ramani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Coutinho, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 4. 2. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the judgment and order dated 30.11.2013 passed by Ad-hoc District Judge-II FTC-II, South Goa, Margao ("the Appellate Court" for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No.176/2012. 4. The said Regular Civil Appeal was filed by the respondents against the order dated 5.10.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division "D" Court (trial Court) in Regular Execution Application No.2/2009/D. 5. The said Execution Application was filed by the petitioner praying for execution of the consent decree dated 29.10.2003 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division in Regular Civil Suit No.43/2001 and the mode of assistance sought by the Decree holder was to direct the appointment of some revenue authority to demarcate the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Bhausaheb Sahadu Jakhere Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.R. Joshi, J.) 1. Heard the rival submissions at length on this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant sole accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed in Sessions Case No.16 of 2008 dated 5th April, 2010. 2. The present appellant-accused was convicted by the Extra Joint Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik for the offence punishable under Section 302 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months. The appellant-accused was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for 15 days. Both substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. By the same judgment and order, the appellant-accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. It is a factual position that since the date of arrest i.e. on the date of the incident its...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Peter Phillip Po and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Challenge in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is to the Judgment and Award dated 21.7.2007, delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa in Claim Petition No.78/2005. The appellant-Insurance Company was respondent No.3 in those proceedings and was given leave to defend. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1, the driver of the vehicle (the mini truck) and respondent No.2 owner thereof did not participate in the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). 2. The MACT has awarded total compensation of Rs.9,33,000/- to respondent No.1 before this Court i.e. claimant before the MACT, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 20.10.2005 till its realisation. The amount awarded has been deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company and out of it, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has also been withdrawn by respondent No.1, in terms of order of the MACT itself. 3. The accident had ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Nankram Ahuja Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2014
1. The appellant Ashok Ahuja (hereinafter referred as 'accused') has been convicted in Summary Case No.6/1996 by Special Judge, Jalgaon for contravening Order under Section 3, punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for 20 days. 2. The matter relates to violation of provisions of Maharashtra Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963 (Sugar Order of 1963 in brief), as accused was found in possession of 22 quintals of sugar, without having licence, which quantity was in excess of 10 quintals permissible for retailer dealer in sugar, who does not have a licence. 3. In short, the prosecution case is as under:- On 7.6.1995, Tahsildar Sikandar Tadvi (P.W.4), posted at Bhusawal, visited the godown of the accused along with his driver Iccharam Chaudhari (P.W.5) and noticed that there were 22 bags of sugar....
Tag this Judgment!Sharda Vs. Allen and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. In this First Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimant challenges the Judgment and Award dated 07.10.2008 delivered by Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, South Goa, Margao, in Claim Petition No.144 of 2007. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has dismissed the Appellant's Claim Petition. 2. The contentions of Appellant before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was that while walking on foot towards the bus stop on 10.09.2006 on the road between Quepem to Tilamol near Kushavati Bridge, a motorcycle with registering No.GA-02/P-4584, came rashly and negligently on wrong side and dashed against her. She fell down and suffered fracture injury. The Respondent No.1 was the driver, the Respondent No.2 is the transferee-owner while Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the vehicle. The Respondent No.4 is the original owner of that motorcycle. The claimant claimed a total compensation of Rs.2,27,000/- which included demand of Res.10,000/- to...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Manik Vitthal Kawle ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks to assail the order dated 30.8.2012, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Beed in Misc. Civil Application No.503 of 2011. 4. The petitioner submits the facts of the case as follows:- (A) Respondent No.1 had availed of a loan of Rs.3,95,000/- for purchasing a tractor. The said loan was obtained from the petitioner. (B) Respondent No.2 stood as a guarantor to the said loan transaction. (C) Respondent No.3 was the sole Arbitrator. (D) Since there was denial in making repayment of the loan installments and in view of the repeated requests made, which did not yield any result, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and the dispute as regards non payment of the loan amount was referred to the third respondent - Arbitrator. (E) Since respondents 1 and 2, despite...
Tag this Judgment!Sidharth Narayan Siddhapur and Another Vs. FLUIDMAC and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 15.7.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao ("the Appellate Court" for short) in Criminal Revision Application No.62/2013 and the Judgment and order dated 31.7.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Quepem ("the J.M.F.C." for short) in Criminal Case No.34/NI/2010/A. 4. The petitioners are the accused persons whereas respondent No.1 is the complainant in the said Criminal Case. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal Case. 5. Complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act" for short) against the accused persons, which has been registered as Criminal Case ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »