Mumbai Court January 2015 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.
Vishwas Krushi Kendra, Shemba Vs. Vidarbha Co-operative Marketing Soci ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. Considering the specific defence taken by the applicant and also his denial of sending of letter containing alleged admission on his part vide Ex.49, I am of the view that the application filed by the applicant praying for sending of the cheque vide Ex.41 and the document vide Ex.49 for examination by Handwriting expert, ought to have been allowed by the trial Court. Dismissal of this application has resulted in denial of fair trial as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) v. M.S. Sampoornam (Mrs.) reported in (2007) 2 SCC 258 and T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Murlidhar reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1945 (SC). 3. Right to adduce evidence including that of report of Handwriting expert is a valuable right and if such right is denied, it would lead to denial of fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself and ultimately he would be deprived of fair trial in the case. 4. The applicant/ accused in this case...
Prakash Vs. Sarvesh and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-12-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent.2. By this application, the applicant has challenged the order passed on 03.2.2014 by District Judge-5 and A.S.J., Nagpur, dismissing the revision application being Cri. Revi. No. 127/13, filed by the applicant against dismissal of applicant's application seeking quashing of process issued against him by the Special Court on 18.10.2012.3. According to the applicant, he is neither Director nor a signatory to the cheque issued in this case and there have been no specific averments made in the complaint that the applicant was responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the company or was in-charge of the company at the time of commission of the offence. Therefore, it is submitted that no essential ingredients of fastening vicarious liability upon the applicant have been established and, as such, process could not have been issued. Reliance has been placed on the decision in National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Harmeet Sing...
Aihaana Achariya Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-2015
P.C. 1. Heard Mr.V.G. Pradhan, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant. Heard Mr.S.K. Shinde, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Heard Mr.B.B.Tiwari, learned counsel for the First Informant who was permitted to intervene in the matter and oppose the application. 2. The applicant is sought to be arrested in C.R.No.123/13 registered at Amboli Police Station, Mumbai. The said crime report is in respect of offences punishable under sections 406 IPC, 420 IPC, 465, 467 and 468 of the IPC. The applicant had applied for Anticipatory Bail, but her application was rejected by the Court of Sessions by an order dated 17th January 2014. The applicant then approached this Court for Anticipatory Bail, but that application - being ABA No.127/14 -was also rejected by this Court by an order dated 5th May 2014 (Coram Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, J). It appears that the applicant somehow was not arrested even after the rejection of the Anticipatory Bail Application, and therefore, got an opportunity to mo...
Om Shiv Constructions Vs. Lalitkutir Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2015
1. By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 25th September 2014 granting only part of the relief in favour of the petitioner (original claimants). The petitioner has impugned remaining part of the award by which the learned arbitrator has rejected the claim for specific performance of the agreement and also refused to grant prayer for damages. Some of the relevant facts for deciding this petition are as under: 2. On 20th June 2002, the respondent entered into a Development Agreement with the petitioner for re-development of its building on the terms and conditions recorded therein. 3. On 25th February 2006, the petitioner inducted Mr.Parvez S. Lakdawala, Mr.Abdul Aziz Abdul Gafoor and Mr.Shahid Abdul Aziz as partners of the petitioner. On 3rd March 2006, the petitioner gave its proposal for demolition of the building and reconstruction of a new building on the alternative basis. It is the case ...
M/s. Krishnagangaa Consultants, through its Proprietor, Gajender C. Su ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-09-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. These appeals can be disposed of by the common judgment as the same issues are involved. The proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short Act of 1923) were filed by the legal representatives of two employees who died in the same accident.2. It is undisputed that the appellant had undertaken the job on contract basis from the respondent no.2. It is undisputed that the deceased employees were employed by the appellant. It is undisputed that the deceased employees died in the pump house situated at the work place where the deceased employees were required to work. It is undisputed that the employees died during the working hours.3. The issue raised by the appellant in these appeals is that the deceased employees died because of suffocation on account of their own negligence and while sleeping in the pump house and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accident had arisen out of and in the course...
Bindu Kumar Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 4. By this application, the applicant is invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 487 (sic) of the Criminal Procedure Code to seek a respite from the order dated 5.8.2014 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur rejecting the application of the applicant for condoning the delay that had occurred in filing a revision application against the order of issuance of process against him. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that when cause of substantial justice and technical considerations are up against each other, side of cause of substantial justice should be taken by the Courts, as the very object of judicial system is to remove injustice. He submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have seen as to whether the applicant had given explanation thereby indicating sufficient cause for exercising his power under Section 5 of the L...
Uday Madhavrao Patwardhan and Others Vs. Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad Muni ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. Writ Petition is called out for final hearing. With a view to appreciate the submissions made across the bar, it will be necessary to make a reference to the factual aspects of the case. The Development Plan for the city of Miraj was sanctioned under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short `MRTP Act') on 26th April 1979. The petitioners are claiming to be the owners of the lands more particularly described in paragraph 3 of the petition (for short the said lands). Under the sanctioned Development Plan (for short sanctioned D.P), the said lands of the petitioners were covered by reservation No.65 which was for Housing for Dishoused and E.W.S Housing. In the year 1988, the Sangli-Miraj and Kupwad Municipal Corporation was established under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and the area covered by the Miraj Municipal Council was included in the limits of the said Municipal Corporation....
Artson Engineering Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2015
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. This Appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) takes exception to two orders passed by the learned Single Judge. The Appellant herein was the Claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an Award dated 30th June, 2005 in favour of the Appellant and the Respondent challenged the same by filing a Petition under section 34 of the Act. In the said Petition, the first order was passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9th November, 2006 (1st impugned order) whereby the Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in favour of the Appellant was set aside. The second order was passed by the learned Judge on 21st December, 2006 (2nd impugned order) which was on an application for speaking to the minutes of the order filed by the Respondent. By this order, the learned Judge, added further reasons in the 1st impugned order for rejecting another claim granted to the Appellant. This Appeal was admitted by a Division Bench of this ...
Pruthvi @ Pruthviraj Subhash Rajole Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2015
P.C. 1. Heard. This is an application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Applicant herein is apprehending his arrest in crime No.3151 of 2014 registered at Panchvati Police Station, Nashik for offence punishable under section 6 of Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board and other Specific Examinations Act, 1982 and section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. It is the case of prosecution that present applicant happens to be a student of 2nd year MBBS and is studying at Government Medical College Nanded. It is alleged that examinations for MBBS 3rd year were in progress in the month of November 2014. On 28/11/2014, present applicant is alleged to have forwarded question paper, received by him on his 'Whats App' application on his cellphone to the students of 3rd year MBBS studying at Nagpur. It appears from the records that at about 2.40 am of 28/11/2014, applicant had received abbreviation of terminologies, which would appear in the examin...
Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. Vs. Tata Motors Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2015
1. By this petition filed u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 26.6.2012 and additional award dated 3.9.2012 allowing the claim made by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. On 30.4.1987, the petitioner placed an order on Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) for supply of a Turbine Unit of Cogeneration Plant for generation of electricity for its fertilizer plant which was supplied by the said company and was commissioned in the year 1989. It is the case of the petitioner that on 1.4.1990, the written down value of the said Turbine Unit in the books of the petitioner was zero. 3. On 27.9.1994, the petitioner addressed a letter to M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. offering it to take lease finance for one Co-generation Unit. On 28.9.1994, M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. sanctioned finance to the petitioner and the petitioner signed a lett...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »