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.
Meru Cab Company Private Limited Vs. Sudhir Bhosale and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. By these petitions filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act?), the petitioner seeks an order of appointment of a Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay or any other fit or proper person as Receiver with a direction to take possession of the taxi described in prayer clause (b) of the petitions or any equipments installed in the taxi from the respondent and hand over the same to the petitioner and for injunction restraining the respondent from using or operating the said taxi or assigning, selling, transferring, alienating, leasing, licensing and/or creating any third party rights in respect of the said taxi and/or parting with the possession thereof in favour of any person other than the petitioner and/or its representatives. The petitioner also seeks mandatory order and injunction against the respondent to forthwith return the said taxi to the petitioner in good order and good working condition along with its equipments and access...
The Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust and Others Vs. Dipesh Mehta and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. Plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 claim to be trustees of Plaintiff No.1 trust and seek injunctive reliefs in the suit against the Defendants, who are claimed to be trespassers, usurpers and intermeddlers in the property of the trust and the Plaintiffs™ right to manage the same. The Plaintiffs also seek recovery of monies defalcated by the Defendants. The Notice of Motion seeks various temporary injunctions against the Defendants restraining them from holding themselves out as managing committee of the trust and preventing and/or obstructing the Plaintiffs from carrying on their duties as members of the managing committee of the trust, etc. 2. Plaintiff No.1 is a public charitable trust known as Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust?. The trust runs a swimming pool and club for its members. The constitution of the Plaintiff trust, established in 1876 as a trust exclusively for European inhabitants of Bombay, underwent a change after the Independence of the Country, with the ordinary membership ...
M/s. Caps and Tabs Trading Company and Others Vs. Elder Pharmaceutical ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. By these petitions filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act?), the petitioner seeks an order and direction against the respondent to deposit in this Court and/or to secure in any appropriate manner, various amounts mentioned in each of the petition in this Court and seeks injunction against the respondent from creating any third party rights of any nature in any of their assets movable or immovable, until the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent are finally adjudicated upon by the learned arbitrator. By consent of the parties, all the arbitration petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Since the facts of all these petitions are almost identical, this Court will summarize the facts in Arbitration Petition No.864 of 2015. 3. The petitioner carries on business as clearing and forwarding agent and provides warehousing and transportation service in respect thereof. On 19th October, 2...
B.V. Nafan and Others Vs. SAF Yeast Company Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. This group of Company Appeals arises from the order passed by the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, on 28 March 2013, in Company Petition No.62 of 2009 filed by M/s. Nafan B.V. The Company Law Board, by the impugned order, has directed Nafan B.V. and Lasaffre Et Cie, to transfer 80722 shares i.e. 51% of shareholding to the respondents in that petition, referred to as Muthu Group. 2. Company Appeal No.21 of 2015 (Company Appeal (L) No. 30 of 2013) is filed by M/s.Nafan B.V.; Company Appeal No.22 of 2015 (Company Appeal (L) No. 33 of 2013) is filed by M/s. Sharp and Tannan, Chartered Accountants; Company Appeal No.23 of 2015 (Company Appeal (L) No. 34 of 2013) is filed by Mr.Arunachalam Muthu and Ors.; Company Appeal No.24 of 2015 (Company Appeal (L) No. 35 of 2013) is filed by M/s. Lesaffre Et CIE. Company Application No.11 of 2015 (Company Application (L) No. 37 of 2013) is taken out in Company Appeal No.21 of 2015 and Company Application No.12 of 2015 (Company Application (L...
Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mum ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. The subject matter of the present Petition is a plot of land being new City Survey No.681 A/7 to 681 A/13 admeasuring 87,470 sq.mts., (the plot) situate at village Nahur, Bhandup (West), Taluka Kurla in S? Ward of Municipal Corporation. The plot of land is owned by the Petitioners and is affected by Development Plan Reservation in respect of D.P. Roads comprising of 45.70 mt. wide Mulund-Goregaon Link Road and 18.30 mt. wide Bhandup Village Road. The aggregate D.P. Road reservation is 8209.30 sq.mts. 3. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 are the authorities under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short MMC Act?). Respondent No.5 is the State of Maharashtra and Respondents Nos.6 and 7 are functionaries of Respondent No.5. 4. The Petitioners main prayers are as under: (i) To forthwith sanction the revised Proposal for development of the said plot interalia modifying the computation of Amenity Space by ...
Nirmalkumar Vs. The Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
S.V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge Regulation 9(18) of the Veterinary Academic Regulations, 2002 framed by the Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur as ultra virus to the Veterinary Council of India (Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education Degree Course- B.V.Sc. and A.H.) Regulations, 1993, so also the communication dated 21.09.2013 informing the petitioner that he will not be allowed to complete B.V. Sc. and A.H. degree course by granting additional time. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was admitted to B.V. Sc. and A.H. degree course in June, 2003. The petitioner has completed 8th semester, however is not allowed to appear for the 5th year 9th semester vide communication dated 21.09.2013 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to complete the course within 10 years. Learned counsel submits that when the petitioner had taken admission in June, 2003, the impugned Regulations of 2002 were not in force. T...
Ashok and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
S. V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. The writ petitions are based on similar set of facts and involve common question of law, as such are decided together. 2. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioners in these writ petitions are Project Affected Persons. The lands of the petitioners are acquired for establishment of respondent/Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Agriculture University, Parbhani. 4. On 15.07.2009, the State Government issued directions to all the Agriculture Universities to fill in not less than 50% of the posts of Group C and Group D from the project affected persons, so that at least 50% of the project affected persons can be given employment. Thereafter, the advertisement was published on or about 28.08.2009 by the respondent university for filling up the posts of Class III and Class IV categories from project affected persons category giving 50% reservation for project affected persons of the said university. The s...
Ram and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Hig ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally. 2. This Petition is filed with the following prayers: (B) By issuing appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned communication dated 10/5/2010 and 30/09/2010 (At Exhibit" L" colly.) be quashed and set aside, consequently the. respondent NO.3 be directed to grant permanent approval to the petitioners and for that purpose necessary directions be issued.? 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, initially pursuant to the selection by selection committee of the respondent No.4 and 5, and thereafter pursuant to the selection made by duly constituted selection committee of the respondent NO.3 university, although the petitioners are appointed and working in respondent NO.5 college, and they are possessing the requisite qualification, the respondent No.3 university has refused to grant approval to the services of the petitioners. It is the case of the ...
Dr. Reeta Harode Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Depar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner questions the judgment dated 27.08.2014 delivered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original Application No. 324 of 2014. The petitioner approached MAT assailing her superannuation on reaching the age of 60 years and questioned refusal of State Government to grant her an extended age of superannuation beyond 60 years and up to 62 years. The date of birth, the date of retirement on reaching the age of superannuation or the date on which she completes 62 years of her age are not in dispute. She reaches 62 years of her age on 31.10.2015 and hence upon the request made by Shri Sambre, learned counsel for the petitioner on 07.10.2015, the petition was directed to be listed on 19.10.2015. That is how it is being heard finally today. 2. The petitioner reached the age of 60 years on 31.10.2013. On 29.10.2013, the State Government denied her extensio...
Smita Khaunte Vs. Police Inspector, Panaji Town Police Station and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash and set aside the first information report dated 7.8.2014 lodged by the complainant Mahesh Kaisare. 2. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- The complainant Mahesh Kaisare lodged complaint to the Police Station, Panaji alleging that on 7.8.2014, from 8.30 onwards there was religious function in his house. His neighbour Mrs. Smita Khaunte i.e. the present petitioner had been to his flat and abused him as well as abused the priest who was performing religious function. After completion of the religious function when the complainant opened the main door at about 3.30p.m opposite the petitioner's flat, the petitioner came to attack his grand daughter Ms. Prakhya aged 2 years who was in his wife lap. His wife tried to prevent her attack thereafter, the petitioner torn her clothes and injured herself with her nails and started shouting. After receipt of the complaint, the police officer, in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »