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.
Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Shoban Pigments and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2015
Oral Order: 1. The applicant, a limited company, had prosecuted the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 on the allegation that these respondents had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act). The respondent no.1 herein is a proprietary concern. The respondent no.2 herein is the proprietor of the respondent no.1, and the respondent no.3 herein is said to be the constituted attorney of the proprietor. After holding a trial, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, found the said respondents not guilty, and passed an order of acquittal. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the applicants have approached this Court and are, by the present application, seeking leave to file an Appeal from the said order of acquittal. 2. I have heard Mr.Subodh Desai, the learned counsel for the applicant. I have heard Mr.Sahil Mahajan, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. With their assistance, I have gone through the application and...
M/s. Akbarally's and Others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2015
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn the arbitral award dated 28th March 2014 allowing the claims made by the respondent and directing the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.15,61,101/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim till the date of payment or realization. 2. On 11th December 2000, the parties entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Under the said MOU, the petitioner agreed to pay certain compensation amounts to the respondent for the premises used and occupied. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that there was discussion held on 12th August 2010 between the officers of the respondent and the petitioners wherein the officers of the respondent agreed for one time settlement and agreed to accept 50% of the compensation in full and final settlement of the entire arrears of the petitioners. The petitioners accordingly by its letter dated 16th August 2010 recorded such alleged settlement arrived at between the officers of the respondent and...
Nenshi Monji (Bombay), a Family Trust and Others Vs. The State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2015
Cav Judgment: (Chief Justice) 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the acquisition of petitioners' lands under final Notification dated 22 December 2005 issued by the State Government under section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (the Slum Act or "the Act'). The petition further challenges the award dated 19 May 2006 passed by the Deputy Collector (Encroachment Removal) (Deputy Collector) under Section 17 of the Act. 2. Initially the petitioners had also challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of sections 14 and 17 of the Act. The present petition along with a group of other petitions were heard on the limited question of constitutional validity of the aforesaid provisions and by judgment dated 10 May 2013, a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Chief Justice) was a party, upheld the constitutional validity of sections 14 and 17 of the Act. The operative order in the ju...
Managing Director Mahyco Seeds Limited and Others Vs. State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-16-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Heard.2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.3. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing and setting aside of criminal case bearing S.T.C. No. 1231 of 2007 filed against the applicant by the State-respondent under Rules 19 and 23 (g) of the Seeds Rules, 1968 for contravention of the provisions of Section 6(a) and 7(b) of the Seeds Act, 1966.4. It has been the case of the State that Sunflower seeds of the variety MSFH-8 of which samples were drawn by the Seed Inspector on 19/9/2006 were not found to be containing same amount of germination as was represented by the applicants. It was represented by the applicants on the label of the packets of the seeds that seeds had 70% germination capacity, whereas the Seed Analyst, Nagpur found, upon testing of the seeds sample, that germination capacity was only 9%.5. The main contention of the applicants is that their valuable right under Section 16(3), Seeds Act, to get the sample tested for its quality f...
Padmaja Arun Pande and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Se ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-16-2015
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the acquisition of their land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Central Act' for short) for the purpose of laying of bye-pass at Buldhana which is said to be the part of Malkapur-Solapur State Highway. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner nos.1 to 4 (the name of the petitioner no.1 has, since been deleted) are the owners of Gat No. 170, while the petitioner nos.5 to 7 are the owners of Gat No.169 of mouza Sagwan, Tahsil and District-Buldhana. A proposal for acquisition of portion of the said fields of the petitioners along with others was received in the office of the respondent no.5Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana on or about 8.4.2008. According to the petitioners, they had not received any notices for joint measurement. The petitioners also contended that the proposed acquisi...
Milind P. Mane and Others Vs. Godrej Infotech Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2015
1. By consent of the parties, all three petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that the reasons to be rendered in Arbitration Petition No.466 of 2012 would also apply to the other companion matters bearing Arbitration Petition No.842 of 2012 and Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No.1150 of 2012. 3. By these three petitions filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners have impugned three separate awards. I shall first summarize the facts of Arbitration Petition No.466 of 2012, which is argued by the learned counsel for the parties at length. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the above petitions are as under : 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had completed various diplomas in various courses such as Mechanical Engineering, Business Management, Materials Management and completed graduate in Industrial Engineering. 5. On...
S.V. Kondaskar Vs. Gopaldas Bulakhidas Mohta of Akola and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-16-2015
1. This is an application under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. As the original records of the company were stated to be misplaced, this Court had ordered filing of F.I.R. to trace out the same. Accordingly as per orders of this Court dated 18.02.2005, F.I.R. was lodged, and ultimately it is not in dispute that the records could not be traced. Police Inspector, Sitabuldi Police Station has submitted his report on 30.03.2005. In this background, the present Company Application No.8/1965 with Company Petition No.8/1963 and other connected matters were listed before me on 10.07.2014. On that day, after hearing the respective counsel for the parties, this Court found that when original records were not available, present proceedings may not go on, as it's effective adjudication may not be possible. After passing orders accordingly and as on that date further progress in F.I.R. lodged was not known, after requesting the learned A.G.P. to assist the Court in the matter, case was r...
Jayantrao Vs. Sumatidevi and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-16-2015
Oral Judgment:1. In view of notice for final disposal already issued, the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.2. Rule, rule made returnable forthwith.3. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 21/12/2013 passed on M.C.A. No.669 of 2013 by the learned Principal District Judge Nagpur, rejecting the application for condoning delay in preferring appeal under the provisions of Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the said Act'). At the outset, Shri Rohit Joshi learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 raised preliminary objection to the tenability of the writ petition on the ground that an alternate remedy under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') was available to the present petitioner for challenging the aforesaid impugned order. He submitted that the application seeking condonation of delay was a separate proceeding in itself and hence the provisions of Section 115 of th...
Sarvodaya Goshala Charitable Trust Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-16-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3. By these petitions the petitioner has challenged legality and correctness of order passed on 22/9/2014 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 453 of 2014 arising out of Crime No.3068 of 2014 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wardha. 4. By the order impugned herein, the learned Magistrate has released the custody of 13 she-buffaloes to respondent No.2, who is one of the accused persons in Crime No.3068 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1960) read with Section 119 of the Bombay Police Act and also Sections 83 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The allegations made against the accused/respondent and others are that they had transported in a motor vehicle 13 she-buffaloes in cruel manner by overloading them and packing them in an unhygienic manner and inappropriate conditions. While the ...
Sarina Esmeralda Lopez Vs. Vijay Goverdhandas Kalantri and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is invoked against the order dated 22/3/2013 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, (Borivali Division), Dindoshi thereby adjudicating upon the preliminary issue which is to the following effect: Whether the suit is not maintainable, the jurisdiction of the Court being ousted by virtue of Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966? 2. The factual matrix involved in the above Civil Revision Application can be stated thus: At the outset it would be necessary to describe the parties to the Civil Revision Application. The Applicant herein is the original Defendant No.2 to the suit; Respondent No.1 herein is the original Plaintiff and the Respondent No.2 is the original Defendant No.1 to the suit. The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act would be referred to hereinafter as the MRTP Act. The case of the Plaintiff is that by an Agreement of Sal...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »