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.
Rajeev S. Mehta Vs. The Commissioner of Police (Hotel Branch) and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
1. Rule. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. This petition is directed against the orders dated 12 September 2014 made by the Commissioner of Police (Hotel Branch) and State order dated 18 December 2014 confirming the same in appeal, both of which have effect of denying the petitioner, 'Public Entertainment Licence' under Bombay Police Act, 1951 (said Act). 3. The petitioner is a sole proprietor of the restaurant functioning under the name and style of 'M/s. Senorita Bar and Restaurant', which has been issued licences by several authorities, inter alia, for carrying on the business as a Restaurant / Eating House. The Commissioner of Police (respondent No.1) has itself granted Eating House Restaurant Certificate No.5/11, some time in the month of May 2011, which has been renewed from time to time. Similarly, the petitioner has been granted FL-III Licence by the Collector, Mumbai city, in terms of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 195...
Eternia Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Others Vs. Lakeview Deve ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
STRUCTUREI Summary Overview4II Factual11III Submissions on MOFA35 IV Findings61 V MMRDAs Conduct76 VI Conclusion and Order77 I. SUMMARY OVERVIEW 1. Powai is a suburban area in north-east Mumbai. It lies about halfway between Mumbais north-western suburb of Jogeshwari and the north-eastern suburb of Vikhroli. The Powai Lake is a large water body just south of the citys fabled Sanjay Gandhi National Park. To the north-east of this lake is the Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai (IIT-B). On the south/south-eastern shore is an area known as the Powai Area Development Scheme (PADS). This is a sprawling development of some 230 acres, all of it being developed by one or more entities in the Hiranandani Group, a conglomerate of real estate developers. Defendants Nos.1 to 11 are all individuals or entities in that group. The PADS is divided into different sectors. One of these is Sector IV-A, a roughly trapez...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sheshrao and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
1. Respondents No.1 and 2, A.S.I. and Police Constable respectively, were facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 330, 324, 323, 354, 166 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in clubbed trial R.C.C. No.157/1998 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani. In the prosecution of R.C.C. No.157/1998 filed by Police Station, Basmatnagar, the complaint filed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, R.C.C. No.424/1993 was merged, in which evidence before charge had been recorded and charge was also framed. Thereafter, in R.C.C. No.157/1998, respondents accused No.1 and 2 filed application Exhibit 46 invoking Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as the Police Act in brief), claiming that the complaint filed by Magistrate as well as the charge sheet filed by the police regarding the offence alleged was time barred as the incident complained of that they had beaten complainant Shantabai and her husband and outraged modesty of the lady while she...
Suhash Vs. Sachin and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant -original complainant and respondent No.1- accused. 2. Perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that judgment of the trial court acquitting respondent No.1 - original accused cannot be maintained. According to him, the trial court erred in invoking Section 23 illustration (f) of the Indian Act of 1872, (hereinafter referred to as "Contract Act" for short). He submits that the complainant has proved that respondent No.1- accused had received money from him for securing the job, but he did not secure the job for the complainant in Nirmal Bang Securities Company (hereinafter referred to as "Company" for short), where the accused was working as Area Manager. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that against such transaction cheque issued, bounced. The matter was relating to private service and not public service and so illustration (f) of Section 23 of the Contract Act could not have been invoked by the trial Court. ...
N. Jethani and Another Vs. Shivaji Co-operative Housing Society Limite ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
1. Both these petitions take exception to the judgment and order dated 12 October 1990 made by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay, partly allowing the petitioner's appeal against judgment and award dated 28 August 1989 made by Cooperative Court No.II, Pune. 2. The Writ Petition No. 5476 of 1990 is directed against the entire judgment and order dated 12 October 1990, whereas, Writ Petition No.1497 of 1992 , which is preferred by Shivaji Co-operative Housing Society Limited (Society) is directed against that portion of the impugned judgment and order which requires the Society to pay to the petitioner the value of structure put up by the petitioner on terrace of bungalow in plot No.32. Accordingly, both the petitions are taken up for disposal together. 3. The Society, which is a 'Tenant Ownership Cooperative Housing Society' deemed to have been registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (said Act) had allotted Plot No.32 to Shri. S.P. Gupte (...
M/s Ambarwadikar and Co. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
1. These appeals were admitted and taken up for final hearing on 13th January 2015. Both the appeals are between same parties.2. Appellant (original plaintiff) in Appeal from Order No.82/2014 is challenging the order dated 7.8.2014, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, below Exhibit 35 in Special Civil Suit No.18/2012, thereby holding that Latur Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Special Civil Suit No.18/2012 filed by the appellant and directing that the plaint should be returned to be filed in proper and competent Court at Nilanga, District Latur.3. In Appeal from Order No.86/2014, same appellant-plaintiff has filed Appeal from Order, challenging the order dated 20.8.2014, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur below Exhibit 29 in Special Civil Suit No.23/2012, thereby holding that Latur Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and directing that the plaint should be returned for being filed to the proper and compet...
Lata Ajinath Khakne Vs. The Additional District Collector, Ahmednagar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2015
Per Court:1. This matter was heard on 12/12/2014 and this Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, has observed in paragraph Nos. 1 to 5 as follows:1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar in Gram Panchayat Dispute Application No.40 of 2014.2. The petitioner is a Sarpanch of village Prabhu Wadgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar. A requisition was moved on 9.9.2014 for taking up a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. Having served the same on the Tashildar, a notice dated 9.9.2014 was issued for convening a special meeting on 15.9.2014. The said motion was passed by 6:2 vote count and as such, the motion was supported by 3/4th majority of the voters as is mandated under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act (the said Act) with regard to a lady Sarpanch.3. The petitioner raised a dispute before the Collector. One of the grounds for appeal was that one b...
Manilal Premji Gala of Bombay Indian inhabitant Vs. Boman P. Irani (si ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 2. The Revisionary Jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the CPC is invoked against the order dated 19th May, 2014 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay by which order the learned Judge has decided the preliminary issue and ruled on the said preliminary issue by holding that the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. 3. The suit in question being SC Suit No.9070 of 1995 was originally filed in this Court and was bearing High Court Suit No.3699 of 1995. The Applicant herein is the original Defendant No.1. The Respondents No.1 and 2 are the original Plaintiffs and the Respondents No.1(a) to 1(e) are the heirs of the original Plaintiff Boman P. Irani who has expired. The Defendant No.2 i.e. Respondent No.3 herein is also supporting the Plaintiffs. 4. The suit in question has been filed by the Plaintiffs for declaration that the partner...
Chandrakala Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-21-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Leave to place additional documents on record is granted. 3. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 4. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 10/9/2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur below her application at Exh.33, thereby rejecting the application that was filed for her discharge from Sessions Case No.53 of 3022 pending on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge. 5. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is not even an iota of prima facie evidence to substantiate various offences such as 498-A, 304-B, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered against the applicant, who was sister-in-law of deceased Chhaya and husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Chhaya. He submits that even if whatever material present on record is accepted as true, it would not be sufficient to constitute the offences alleged against the applicant. 6. According to l...
Jose Almeida and Others Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, SOP ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-21-2015
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Both the above appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 14.01.2010 passed by the learned District Judge-2, FTC-II, Margao (Reference Court, for short), in Land Acquisition Case No. 50/2008. The appellants of First Appeal No. 50/2010, who are respondents in First Appeal No. 67/2011 were the applicants in the said Land Acquisition Case No. 50/2008, whereas the respondent in First Appeal No. 50/2010 who is the appellant no. 2 in First Appeal No. 67/2011 was the respondent in the said Land Acquisition Case. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition Case. 3. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act for short), published in the Official Gazette dated 13.12.2004 and in two newspapers (Sunaparant and Herald), both dated 18.12.2004, the Government acquired land for improvement and widening of the road from old survey office to T.V.S. showroom ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »