Mumbai Court November 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.
Chanda Hinglas Bharati Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Addit ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-26-2015
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Whether a Hindu woman who marries a Hindu man during the subsistence of his marriage with his wife would be entitled to family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 is the question that falls for consideration in this writ petition. Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus: 2. Hinglas Bharati was in the services of the respondent nos.2 to 4 while he expired on 19.9.1999. Hinglas Bharati was married to Pushpa as per Hindu rites and custom and during the subsistence of the marriage of Hinglas Bharati with Pushpa and during the lifetime of Pushpa, petitioner Chanda claims to have entered into a wedlock with Hinglas Bharati on 3.4.1993. Ku. Sheetal was born from the wedlock between Hinglas Bharati and Smt. Pushpa whereas Ku. Diksha and Chetan were born from the alleged wedlock between t...
Smita Prakash Chikhale and Another Vs. Gajanan Yashwant Khatu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The Revisionary Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the Learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, by which order the suit in question being Short Cause Suit No.2182 of 2012 came to be decreed and the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above Civil Revision Application can in brief be stated thus: 2. The parties would be referred to as per their nomenclature in the suit. The above Civil Revision Application has been filed by the original Defendants whereas the Respondent is the original Plaintiff in the suit in question. The suit in question was filed invoking Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The cause for filing of the suit was the alleged dispossession of the Plaintiff by the Defendants on 16.11.2011. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the suit shop belonged to one Dharnid...
Nirmal Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. Aanant Developers Private Li ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 37 (2) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Arbitration Act'), the petitioner has impugned the order dated 5th October, 2015 passed by the arbitral tribunal rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under section 17 of the Arbitration Act. By consent of parties, the arbitration petition is heard finally at the admission stage. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2. The respondent had acquired development rights in respect of 86 acres of land and additional 34 acres both situated at Taluka Kalyan, District Thane and was in process of acquiring development rights and/or conveyance in respect of further 255 acres situated at Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. 3. On 17th January, 2007, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding whereunder the respondent agreed to acquire and transfer and/or grant development rights to the petitioner in ...
M/s. Darshan Jayant Builders and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the impugned order dated 4 March 2014 (Exhibit-I to the petition) and quash and set aside the same. 3. The facts necessary to appreciate the rival contentions are that the Petitioner no.1 is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and Petitioner no.2 is a partner of Petitioner no.1. The Respondent nos.1 and 2 are the State Government and the Secretary in the Department of Housing and Special Assistance. The Respondent no.3 is a statutory authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 and Respond...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Dharampeth, Nagpur, thr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-26-2015
1. In the Claim Petition No.575 of 2002 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nagpur has passed an award on 27.03.2003, in favour of the dependents of the deceased namely Nazir Beg, for a compensation of Rs.3,25,150/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition and further at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award till its realization, for failure to deposit the amount within a period of 45 days. The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company both are held liable jointly and severally, to pay the amount of compensation. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was working as a driver on the vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration No.MH-31 H-5869 owned by the respondent No.2 and he died on 06.12.1997, as a result of the vehicle turning turtle. The Tribunal has held that the dependents of the deceased are entitled for compensation even though the deceased died because of his own negligence resulting in occur...
Beersing Charan Karosiya and Others Vs. Tanhabai Pratap Karosiya and O ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides by consent for final disposal. 2. The present proceeding is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No.271 of 2009 which was pending in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar. The appeal was filed by the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 to challenge the decision of application which was filed under section 383 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In the application bearing Civil Misc. Application No.81/2008 the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 had challenged the succession certificate granted in favour of present petitioners in Misc. Application No.91/2007 which was filed under section 372 of the Act. The trial Court had refused to revoke the succession certificate but the appeal is allowed by the District court and the certificate is revoked. 3. The application bearing No.91/2007 which was filed under section 372 of the Act was filed by present petiti...
Municipal Council (Nagar Parishad) Vs. Vikas Machindra Mane and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner in these three petitions is the Municipal Council, Osmanabad. The daily wage employees involved in these three petitions are represented by the respondent No.1 Union. This Union had preferred Complaint (ULP) Nos. 395 of 1991, 468 of 1990 and 93 of 1989 before the Industrial Court, seeking benefits of permanency for the workers mentioned in the Annexure to the complaints. By identical three judgments, dated 11.1.1996, all these three complaints have been allowed. The petitioner has questioned these three judgments in these petitions. 2. Since all the daily wage employees, represented by the respondent Union are identically situated and an identical question of law is involved, I have considered these three petitions together. 3. While admitting these petitions, this Court has protected the services of the daily wage employees. Consequentially, barring a few who have retired, all such employees are in employment and all of them have been granted regulariz...
Kirti Sohan Modi and Others Vs. M/s. Creation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
P.C. : 1. This suit seeks an order of permanent injunction against the Defendant restraining it from entering upon the terraces of the Plaintiffs' buildings and a mandatory order and injunction directing the Defendant to remove the hoardings as well as of its belongings from the terraces of the buildings and to cease to occupy the premises. The Plaintiffs also seek compensation or damages for use of the suit premises by the Defendant between 1 April 2007 to the date of the suit and thereafter till the time the Defendant removes itself from the suit premises. It is the Plaintiffs' case that the Defendant was granted licence to use the premises for display of advertisements on hoardings under an agreement for licence reserving a monthly compensation payable for such user. It is the Plaintiffs' case that the agreement, which was renewed from time to time, finally expired on 31 March 2007 by efflux of time and also by termination notice issued in that behalf on 10 March 2007; and that afte...
Dadajee Dhackjee and Co. Ltd. Vs. Neelam V. Rajani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. At the outset, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners seeks deletion of the Respondent No.6 as in the context of the challenge raised in the above Petition the Respondent No.6 is a formal party. The said Respondent is accordingly deleted at the risk of the Petitioners. 2. Rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 3. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the Learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, by which order the application being Transfer Application No.294 of 2014 filed by the Respondent No.4 herein came to be allowed and resultantly, RAE and R Suit No.726/1127 of 2003 was ordered to be transferred from Court Room No.16 to Court Room No.23 in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. 4. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Writ Petition lie i...
Apex Encon Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. L and T Finance Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. The appellants have filed these appeals against the judgment and order dated 16th July, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the said order, which was a common order passed in four arbitration petitions, the learned Single Judge was pleased to come to the conclusion that the petitions which are filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (`the said Act'), were barred by limitation and on that ground, the arbitration petitions were dismissed. The appellants being aggrieved by the said order have preferred these appeals. 2. It is the contention of the appellants that arbitral award dated 21st March, 2013 was not served in accordance with the provisions of Section 31(5) of the said Act, on 1st April, 2013, as alleged by the respondents and it is, therefore, contended that the limitation for filing applications/petitions under Section 34 should not be counted from 1st April, 2013 and the finding given by the learned Singl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »