Mumbai Court October 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.
Bombay Cable Car Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. B.M. Jain and Sons Co. P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The company appeal challenges an order passed on a company application filed in a disposed of company petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act?). The company petition involved disputes between two groups of shareholders of the company. The petition was disposed of by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench (CLB?) by directing one group to sell its shares to the other group at a valuation to be made by the statutory auditor of the company and issuing various other directions. That order was, upon a challenge in an appeal, upheld by this Court with passing of further directions. The statutory auditor thereupon proceeded to value the shares. The valuation was thereafter challenged by the Respondents herein by filing a company application in the disposed of company petition. By the impugned order, the valuation report prepared by the statutory auditor of Appellant No.1 company was set aside and a fresh valuation was ordered. So also, cancella...
Govind Tukaram Shete and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. The submissions were heard on the earlier date. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short `the said Act'). The Award under section 11 of the said Act was made on 24th January 2008. The petitioners have contended that the acquisition has lapsed as the Award was not made within the time stipulated under section 11A of the said Act. The property subject matter of this petition is the land bearing survey No.72/6 admeasuring 11 Ares situated at Bhor, Taluka Bhor, District Pune. A notification under subsection (1) of section 4 of the said Act was issued on 29th April 2005. A declaration dated 23rd December 2005 under subsection (1) of section 6 of the said Act was published in the Government Gazette on 5th January 2006. 2. The contention raised in this petition is that from the date of the declaration under section 6 of the said Act, the impug...
Ram Mohan Vs. The Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited thr. its Cha ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. The petitioner “ an ex-General Manager with Respondent No. 1 has questioned the order of transfer dated 10.02.1997 by which he has been asked to work on equivalent post as Officer on Special Duty at Balda. Later order passed on 30.06.1999 ordering his premature retirement with effect from very same date has also been assailed. 2. Heard Shri Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is not present. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their submissions in response to rule on stay on 21.07.1999. The petitioner has thereafter filed an affidavit on 02.09.2014. In that affidavit, the petitioner has pointed out that Special Case No. 39 of 2003 instituted against him on the basis of CBI inquiry has been dismissed and he has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 477A and 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. R...
M. Jayaram Shetty Vs. Vijay V. Haria Soleve proprietor of M/s. Champio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The Appellant herein has challenged the judgment dated 16th June, 2009 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 and set aside the judgment dated 7th October, 2005 passed in C.C. No.1908/SS/1998 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, thereby acquitted the Respondent No.1 of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under: 2. The Appellant-complainant had filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that on 12th April, 1998 he had given to the Respondent No.1-accused a loan of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Appellant-complainant had further stated that the Respondent No.1accused had issued to him a cheque dated 3rd July, 1998 for Rs.7,00,000/- towards the repayment of the said amount. The Appellant-complainant deposited the said cheque on 5th August, 1998. The s...
Dr. Shruti Ramesh Wankhede Vs. Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Agricultural ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2015
S.S. Shinde, J.]: 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prayed two fold reliefs. Firstly, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the appointment order issued in favour of the respondent No.2, appointing her to the post of Subject Matters Specialist (Horticulture); and secondly, it is prayed that the respondent No.1 be restrained from filling up the vacancy of the post of Subject Matters Specialist meant for open category as per the advertisement dated 31.3.2012 from 30% female reservation. 3. The background facts for filing the petition, in short, are as under: The respondent No.1 University issued an advertisement dated 31st March, 2012. In response to the said advertisement, for the post of Subject Matters Specialist (Horticulture), the petitioner applied. The petitioner has completed M.Sc. (Agriculture) from Dr. Punjab...
Inception Media LLP Vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2015
1. This is an action in copyright infringement and breach of confidentiality. The Plaintiff claims to hold the copyright in a concept note for a proposed television serial called Ye Tera Ghar Ye Mera Ghar?. It says that this was disclosed in circumstances of confidentiality to the 1st Defendant, Star India Private Limited. At the time when it was disclosed, or shortly thereafter, Star India said it was not interested in developing this concept. The Plaintiff says that it then took the script to another production house, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (Zee?). Even as the Plaintiff was working with Zee on the development of a serial based on the Plaintiff™s concept note, the Plaintiff was informed by the Programming Head of Zee saying that a promotional video had appeared on YouTube for a television show entitled Zindagi Abhi Baki Hai Mere Ghost? being made by Star India, and that this seemed to be too similar to the Plaintiff™s concept note to merit further work by Ze...
ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Anil Printers Limited and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 2. The Revisionary Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 02.05.2015 passed by the Learned 7th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nashik, by which order the application Exh.19 filed by the Applicant herein i.e. Defendant No.1 to the suit in question invoking Section 9A of the CPC to question the jurisdiction of the Civil Court came to be rejected and the Trial Court ruled that it has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit in question. 3. The facts which are necessary to be cited for the adjudication of the above Civil Revision Application can in brief be stated thus. The parties would be referred to as per their status in the suit. The Plaintiff i.e. the Respondent No.1 herein is having a printing industry and has factories in Satpur, Ambad and Gonde in Nashik District. The Plaintiff applied for various loan facilities including Working Capital Credit Facility to...
Hanifa Kitabulla Khan and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellants have impugned the judgment and order dated 30th October 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.350 of 1999 thereby convicting them under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. By the said judgment and order, the appellant's have also been convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Trial Court has directed that the sentences to run concurrently. By the said judgment and order dated 30.10.2007, the Trial Court was pleased to acquit the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts whic...
Punjab Bhika Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 10th February 2006 passed by the 2nd Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.402 of 2005 thereby convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for six months. 2. The facts which can be enumerated from the record and are necessary to decide the present appeal can briefly be stated thus: (i) The complainant Motiram D. Zhate (PW-1), PW-2-Dilip D. Pawar, PW-5-Ankush B. Chavan, PW-6 Gajanan S. Chavan and the deceased Santosh Javle were labourers and were working on the construction site of a petrol pump near Industrial Training School, opposite Military Cadet Boys hostel, Kandivali (W), Mumbai. PW-9 Shashi Suvarna was the construction site supervisor of the said site. That as all the said labourers were from outside Mumbai, they were sta...
Inception Media LLP Vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2015
1. This is an action in copyright infringement and breach of confidentiality. The Plaintiff claims to hold the copyright in a concept note for a proposed television serial called Ye Tera Ghar Ye Mera Ghar?. It says that this was disclosed in circumstances of confidentiality to the 1st Defendant, Star India Private Limited. At the time when it was disclosed, or shortly thereafter, Star India said it was not interested in developing this concept. The Plaintiff says that it then took the script to another production house, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (Zee?). Even as the Plaintiff was working with Zee on the development of a serial based on the Plaintiff™s concept note, the Plaintiff was informed by the Programming Head of Zee saying that a promotional video had appeared on YouTube for a television show entitled Zindagi Abhi Baki Hai Mere Ghost? being made by Star India, and that this seemed to be too similar to the Plaintiff™s concept note to merit further work by Ze...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »