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.
Zama Gotya Jadhav (since deceased) and Others Vs. The State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.)1. The matter is called out from final hearing board. Heard finally.2. We are inclined to dispose of present writ petition, as after hearing and after going through the documents and the material place on record, we have also noticed that no opportunity of hearing and or personal hearing, as contemplated under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was given to the petitioners to determine the enhanced amount of compensation on the basis of the Award passed. Section 28A contemplate s and entitles the owner or person concerned to apply for an enhancement of compensation. The concerned authority is, therefore, required to consider the same in accordance with law which includes fair and equal opportunity to all the persons affected. Otherwise also, it is necessary as for effective determination/inquiry means fair opportunity, so that the concerned person/s can place all relevant materials in support their claim of enhancement of compensation.3. T...
Dr. Rajasi @ Swapna Vs. Dr. Shashank
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
Oral Judgment: (Mridula Bhatkar, J.) 1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2011 passed by the Judge, Family Court No.3, Nagpur in petition No.A-263/2007 thereby passing the order of dissolution of the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty. 2. The appellant-Wife and the respondent-Husband, both, are Doctors by profession. (hereinafter the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband are referred to as per their marital status, i.e. Wife and Husband, for the sake of brevity and convenience). Their marriage was settled on 18.06.2006. It was an arranged marriage. On 16.12.2006, the marriage was solemnized and both went to Ooty for their honeymoon thereby the marriage was consummated. However, there were few clashes at Ooty between the parties and after their return, the Wife went to her maiden home at Parbhani in the month of January-2007. The Husband and his family members found abnormal traits in the behaviour of the Wife. There was an a...
Anil Vs. M/s Taori Marketing, A partnership Firm, through its partner ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. By this application, the applicant has challenged legality and correctness of two orders passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur on 14/9/2012 and 15/01/2013. 5. The facts leading to presentation of the application may be stated in brief as under.: 5.1 The respondent initiated proceedings for dishonour of cheque issued to it by the applicant towards satisfaction of the applicant's liability on account of purchase of some goods by the applicant from the respondent on credit, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The affidavit in evidence was filed by the respondent on 06/01/2011 and he was also cross-examined by the applicant on 26/8/2011. 5.2 Few days later i.e. on 30/8/2011 the respondent moved an application vide Exh.46 seeking leave of the Court to examine partner of the respondent-firm, Satyanarayan Taori as its witness on the ground that the applicant had denied execution of po...
Sanghshil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant has challenged the order passed on 09/10/2014 below application (Exh.74) filed by the applicant under Section 173(8) read with Section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. seeking direction for reinvestigation, by Additional Sessions Judge-11, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.161 of 2014. It is the contention of the applicant that his sister, Bharti, did not commit suicide and was murdered in cold blooded manner by her husband, respondent No.2. The applicant submits, even though respondent No.2 has been prosecuted by the investigating agency for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer was improper and did not at all consider the aspect of meeting of homicidal death by deceased Bharti. He submits that as per the prosecution case, deceased Bharti committed suicide by in...
GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. Vs. Ramapriya Raghavan, Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the notice dated 14th March, 2007 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Assessing Officer, seeking to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. The Petition was admitted on 18th December, 2007. At the time of admission, the impugned notice dated 14th March, 2007 was stayed. 3. The brief undisputed facts leading to this Petition are as under: (a) The Petitioner has three manufacturing units - one located at Pimpri and two at Ahmednagar. At all times relevant to this Petition, two manufacturing units of the Petitioner were located at Ahmednagar were entitled to the benefit of tax under Section 80IA/80IB of the Act as they were situated in a backward region; (b) On 30th October, 2002, the Petitioner filed its Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2002-03, declaring total income of Rs.6.89 Crores. In its Return of Income, the Petitioner claimed d...
Ramesh Samarthmal Seth Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
P.C. 1. Not on Board. Mentioned. Taken on production board in view of the urgency. 2. Heard learned counsel Mrs. Kanani appearing for the Petitioner and the learned additional public prosecutor Mr. Patil for the State. 3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom a revision application filed by the Petitioner is pending. 4. The Petitioner is accused in criminal case No.390/SS/2012 and is facing trial for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Petitioner had applied for issuance of summons to a defence witness. The same could not be served by the Petitioner and, therefore, he applied for a fresh summons. The learned Magistrate refused to issue a fresh summons and observed that the Petitioner is delaying the trial intentionally. The order of the learned Magistrate has been challenged before the Sessions Court by way of filing a revision application. The learned Sessions Court has refused to grant...
Hanwha General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. m.v. ELENI (IMO No.9460277)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
P.C. 1. This notice of motion is taken out on behalf of the defendant for dismissal of the suit in view of the order and decree passed by the High Court of Hong Kong and, in the alternative, return the suit to the plaintiff to be presented in the Hong Kong High Court and, in the further alternative, stay the suit sine die and return the security furnished by the defendant. 2. This action arises out of a collision on 7th November 2013 between two ships, m.v. Heung-A Dragon and m.v. Eleni, the first defendant vessel, in or near the channel off the Vietnamese port of Phu My. The plaintiff is claiming against the defendant vessel a sum of US$ 787,343.94 together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit until payment/realization. The plaintiff is a Korea based Insurance Company who stands as subrogated insurers of five parties whose cargo was onboard the vessel m.v. Heung- A Dragon. The plaintiff claim to have settled the claim of the insured. It is the case of the plaintiff...
Aimul Hasan Maqbool Hasan Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
Oral Order: 1. The Applicant, original accused, felt aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Appeal No.20 of 2000, whereby the Appeal of the Applicant against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, was dismissed. 2. The Applicant was prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Pant Nagar Police Station. Trial was held before the Magistrate. Three witnesses were examined during the course of the trial. After the conclusion of the evidence and statement of the Applicant recorded under section 313, the Applicant was found guilty of the offence punishable under sections 279 and 338 of the IPC. 3. The incident in question had occurred on 12th July, 1992. The complainant (PW-1) was traveling along with his father - Dattatray Dhonduram Karanjkar in a BEST Bus on route No.353 from Tagore Nagar at around 5 p.m.. PW-1 and his father were to get down at Raj...
Bharat Singh Vs. M.V. Kamal XLVI and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
P.C. 1. These are a group of suits in which the plaintiffs are crew members who worked onboard different vessels mentioned in each suit. The vessel on which the plaintiffs worked as crew are shown as defendant no.1. One of the defendant in all the suits is Jaisu Shipping Pvt. Ltd. The crew members were engaged by Jaisu Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Jaisu") mainly through their manning agents and the obligation to pay the wages was also of Jaisu. Jaisu not having paid the wages, the crew members, viz., the plaintiffs have filed the suit to recover their wages claiming maritime lien over the vessel. 2. The vessels were arrested pursuant to order of this Court and some have been sold pursuant to orders passed by this court as the owners/Jaisu did not put up the bail or furnished security for release of the vessels. The sale proceeds are in the custody of the Prothonotary and Senior Master/Admiralty Registrar. The vessels yet to be sold are in the custody of the Sheriff o...
Simplex Infrastructure Limited Vs. Siemens Limited and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2015
1. The above Petition is filed by the Petitioner Simplex Infrastructures Limited against Respondent No. 1 Siemens Limited and Respondent No.2 IndusInd Bank Limited under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), inter alia, for the following reliefs: (a) pending the passing of an arbitral award and its enforcement, this Honble Court may be pleased to: (i) pass an order/direction thereby restraining Respondent No. 1 from en-cashing the Bank Guarantee bearing No. 0015PR10005693 dated December 30, 2010, for a sum of Rs. 18,33,41,947/- (Rupees Eighteen Crore Thirty Three Lakh Forty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Seven only) and any other bank guarantee furnished by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 until final adjudication of the disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1; (ii) stay the operation of the invocation letter dated August 21, 2014 bearing reference No. IN1024/andABC020/0917/SILEXT0111/ NRR issued by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No.2; ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »