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.
The State of Maharashtra Through the Joint Director Vs. Kuber Govindra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. As per the Administrative order dated 9th September, 2015 passed by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, this Petition has been specially assigned to this Bench. Heard the learned AGP appearing for the Petitioner and the Respondent appearing in person. As per the request made by the Respondent appearing in person, we have permitted him to make submissions in Marathi language. We have also perused the written submissions made by him. 2. The Respondent was in the service of the State Government. On 15th November, 2011, the Joint Director of Vocational Education and Training exercised powers under clause (b) of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short Pension Rules?) and by his order informed the Respondent that on completion of the notice period of three months i.e. with effect from 16th February, 2012, the Respondent shall stand compulsorily retired from the Government service. The Respondent approached the ...
Anand Villa Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Others Vs. Parinee R ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners seek an order and direction against the respondent no.1 to secure the claim of the petitioners by depositing a sum of Rs.16,46,33,116/-, seeks injunction against the respondent no. 1 and respondent no.8 from creating any third party rights in respect of three commercial shops, four flats on 10th and 11th floors, first floor and service floor of the suit property, order against respondent no.8 to deposit the entire balance consideration of Rs.37,10,00,000/- under the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 13th April, 2015 in this court and seeks various other reliefs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner no.1 became the owner of a property situated at Santacruz (West) described in development agreement by a deed of conveyance. On 3rd November, 2007, the petitioner and the respondent no.1 entered into a registered dev...
Kedar Chandrakant Berde Vs. Rishabraj Housing and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2015
Oral Judgment:(V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Appellant/original Plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge. By the said Judgment and Order dated 15/06/2015, the learned Single Judge was pleased to restrain Defendant No.1 from creating third party rights in respect of Flat No.702 admeasuring 830 sq. ft. carpet area in the suit building. The learned Single Judge further held that the Plaintiff was entitled to the judgment in terms of prayer clause (b) in respect of Flat No.702 admeasuring 830 sq. ft. carpet area in the suit building which was to be constructed by Defendant No.1 as per the redevelopment agreement. It was further held that the Plaintiff was entitled to 562.5 sq.ft. carpet area free of cost from 830 sq.ft. of carpet area of the flat and that the Plaintiff was entitled to purchase remaining 267.5 sq. ft carpet area for Rs 14 lakhs. 2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under: 3. Appel...
Anusaya and Others Vs. Surekha Shashikant Sathe and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-20-2015
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 40/1999, which was pending in the Court of 2nd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. The first appeal was filed by plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No. 520/1991, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrirampur for relief of partition and separate possession of Joint Hindu Family Properties. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court has set aside the decision of trial Court and has given the relief of partition and possession in favour of plaintiffs. The defendants have challenged the decision. Both the sides are heard. 2. It is the case of plaintiffs that one Bapuji Sathe was common ancestor of plaintiffs and defendants. Bapuji had two sons by name Ramkrushna and Shivram. The plaintiffs are successors of Shivram and defendants are successors of Ramkrushna. 3. It is the case of plaintiffs that after the death of Bapuji, Joint H...
M/s. Raj Shipping and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The question involved in these Writ Petitions is whether the sales made and subject matter of the order of assessment in the first Petition are within the State of Maharashtra so as to be taxable under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (for short the MVAT Act?) and therefore the action of the Respondents treating it as such can be said to be ex-facie illegal. Since the point involved and summed up above is common to all the Petitions, for the purpose of the present Judgment, we take the facts from Writ Petition No. 4552 of 2015. It is undisputed that since the controversy involved in these Writ Petitions is similar, common arguments have been canvassed. Hence, we dispose of all the Writ Petitions by this common Judgment. 3. The facts in Writ Petition No. 4552 of 2015 are as under: The Petitioner is registered dealer under the provisions of the MVAT Act and the Central Sa...
ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s. Classic Diamonds (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
P.C. : 1. The Company Petition seeks winding up of the Respondent company on the ground of deemed inability to pay its debts within the meaning of Section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act?). 2. One Aarohi Diamonds Ltd. ( in which the Respondent holds 49 % shareholding) had obtained a credit facility (loan) up to the sum of USD 7 million from the Petitioner bank. This loan was inter alia secured by a corporate guarantee issued by the Respondent in favour of the Petitioner. The credit facility was subsequently restricted to the sum of USD 5 millions. The principal borrower defaulted in repayment of the loan availed of under the credit facility. The Petitioner, thereupon, by its letter dated 3 January 2012, cancelled the credit facility with immediate effect calling upon the borrower to make payment of USD 5.15 millions towards the dues outstanding as on 3 January 2012. On 6 February 2012, the Petitioner invoked the corporate guarantee calling upon the Respondent company to...
Manisha Namdevrao Chole Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition is filed with following prayer: B] By issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents No.2 to 4 be directed to consider the claim of petitioner for appointment on the post of Arogya Sevak [women] form OBC as well as Project Affected Category, in accordance with law and consequently, the petitioner be issued such appointment order and for that purpose necessary directions be issued. B-1] By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondent No.2 to 4 be directed to include the name of petitioner in the final selection list (at Annexure-™E™) for the post of Arogya Sevak (Women) from OBC and Project Affected Category and she be issued appointment order accordingly and for that purpose necessary directions be issued. B-2] By issuing appropriate writ, order or directio...
Sanjay Bajirao More and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra through its P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have challenged common order dated 28 May 2015 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee-Respondent No.2, invalidating the caste certificates of the Petitioners as belonging to Thakur-Scheduled Tribe?, issued by the Competent Authority. 3. The case of the Petitioners is as follows: i) On 5 January 1924, father of Petitioner No. 1 and real uncle of Petitioner No. 2 admitted in the primary school and on 9 December 1925, father of Petitioner No.2 and real uncle of Petitioner No.1 admitted in the primary school, where their social status was described as Thakur?. ii) On 6 September 1950, by exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India, the President was pleased to initially issue the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. As far as the then State of Bombay was concerned, the relevant portion is to...
Prashant Savlo Nagvekar Vs. Shilpa Shivaji Kumbhar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
1. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A. Afonso, learned Advocate for the respondent no.4. 2. The present appeal is preferred by the original respondent no.1 against the judgment and the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji, in Claim Petition No.33/2007 dated 3rd June, 2010 by which, the Claim Petition of the petitioner is partly allowed and the compensation of Rs. 2,62,275/- is awarded to the claimants. 3. The parties are referred to their original status. 4. The widow and the minor sons of deceased Shivaji filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia contending that the deceased Shivaji, aged about 38 years old, was a Transport Operator and working as a Transport Contractor with M/s. Gati Limited and was earning Rs.7000/- per month. 5. On 28.6.2006 the deceased was travelling in the Tata Tempo bearing Registration No.GA-01-T-7387 driven by the respondent no.1-appellant and was p...
M/s Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Limited Vs. Sita Shripad Narvekar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner who is the original defendant is challenging the order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao in Special Civil Suit No. 58/2013/III. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner for exhibiting certain documents has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner served a notice to admit the documents, on the respondents under Order 12 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. The notice was served on or about 18.11.2014. The documents which the petitioner wanted the respondents to admit are some letters by the petitioner to the respondents which are in excess of a thousand communications. It is further undisputed that the respondents did not specifically deny the said documents. In that view of the matter, an application came to be fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »