Mumbai Court December 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.
Ramchandra Yeshwant Desai and Others Vs. Krishna Sitaram Desai, deceas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By consent of the parties, both these second appeals are heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The appellant no.1 in Second Appeal No.599 of 1993 was the original defendant no.1 before the trial Court and was appellant in Civil Appeal No.30 of 1985. The appellant nos.2 and 3 are the original defendant nos.2 and 3 respectively before the trial Court and were appellant nos.2 and 3 in Civil Appeal No.30 of 1985. The respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 were the original plaintiffs before the trial Court and were respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 in Civil Appeal No.30 of 1985. 3. Insofar Second Appeal No.598 of 1993 is concerned, the appellant to the said appeal was the original plaintiff before the trial Court and the appellant in Civil Appeal No.33 of 1985. The respondents to the second appeal were the original defendants before the trial Court and were the respondents in Civil Appeal No.33 of 1985. Common evidence was led by the parties in both the suits. 4. Some of...
Rajendra Rebello Vs. Housing Board of Goa, Through its Chairman
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. H. D. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 06.08.2010 on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the Courts below could have dismissed the suit of the appellant in toto after having recording a finding that the appellant was indeed owner in possession of the property surveyed under Nos. 49/3, 48/2 and 3 and 47/4 ? (b) Whether the Courts below misdirected themselves in casting the burden of proving that the road was not constructed in the acquired area, on the appellant, instead of casting the said burden on the respondent, and in failing to draw an adverse inference against the respondent for non production of the plan of acquisition which would show that the area of survey No.49/3 which was acquired by the Government, particularly in view of the fact that the report of the expert produced by the ...
Morgan Ventures Limited Vs. Blue Coast Hotels and Resorts Limited and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Sreejesh M.K., learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal challenges an order passed by the Company Law Board dated 31th July, 2008 whereby an application under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 came to be dismissed on two counts. The learned Company Law Board came to the conclusion that as the affidavit dated 1/8/2007 was not in accordance with the requisite consent required for filing an application under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the appellants were not entitled for any relief in such an application for filing such a false affidavit. The next ground on which the application came to be rejected is that the allegation of the appellants that they had consent of more than 100 members of the respondent Company was on the basis of a list submitted by M/s. Religare, out of which 43 members were not shown in the Register of Members mainta...
Deepak Vs. Dy. Director (R) and Member-Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Cast ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court mainly praying for the following reliefs: i. protect the services of the petitioner in view of Office Memorandum dated 10.8.2010 issued by Government of India (Annexure-10) and Kavita Solunke's case by quashing and setting aside the termination dated 25.8.2004 issued by the respondent No.2, i.e. The Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai (Annexure-4) and reinstating the petitioner in the services as Lower Division Clerk, in the interest of justice, ii. quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.10.2013 passed by the respondent No.2, i.e. The Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai (Annexure No.9) in the interest of justice.? 3. The petition has a chequered history. The petitioner came to be appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 6.6.1995 on the e...
Mahadeo Kashiba Waghmode and Others Vs. Kallappa Shidlinga Waghmode an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
1. By this second appeal, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 7th November, 1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants (original plaintiffs). 2. By an order dated 11th January, 1994 this court while admitting the second appeal had formulated following substantial questions of law:- (1) Whether the title and possession of agricultural lands could be decided solely on the basis of mutations effected by the revenue authorities. (2) Whether the decision of the Revenue Authorities in inquiry regarding the right based on the record of rights entries is final and binding and whether the title of the rights is determined by such decisions alone. (3) Whether it is permissible to change the record in respect of lands governed and covered by the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, and whether the holdings determined under the said Act could be tampered with by m...
Suresh Ramchandra Palande and Others Vs. The Government of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1.Considering the extreme urgency involved in these Petitions, the same are forthwith taken up for final disposal. Rule. The learned counsel representing the concerned Respondents waive service. In these Petitions, except Writ Petition No. 11721 of 2015, an exception has been taken to the order dated 26th October 2015 passed by the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority (for short, the Regulatory Authority?). The Regulatory Authority has been established under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act,2005 (for short, the said Act of 2005?). In some of the Petitions, the challenge is also to the order passed by the Regulatory Authority on Petitions seeking review of the order dated 26th October 2015. 2.The proceedings before the Regulatory Authority were initiated on the basis of applications made by one Mr. Bharat Tukaram Bhalke (the 10th Respondent in Writ Petition No. 11426 of 2015) and one Mr. Siddheshwar Dadasaheb...
Sandip Baliram Sandbhor and Others Vs. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Taken up for disposal. 2. The Petitioners, nineteen in number, challenge the Award passed by the Industrial Court, Pune dismissing their Complaint (ULP) No. 177 of 2005. 3. The Respondent No.1 is a local authority constituted for the Pimpri Chinchwad area, under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The Respondent No.2 is the Municipal Commissioner. Respondent No.3 is the Medical Officer of Health in the services of the Municipal Corporation. The Respondent “ Corporation has a public hospital known as Talera Hospital at Chinchwad. The Petitioners were initially working on Class IV post in Talera Hospital, through a contractor M.P. Enterprises. The contract with M.P. Enterprises came to an end by September 2004 and thereafter, the Petitioners continued to work for seven months with the Respondents, and apprehending their discontinuance, they filed a complaint (ULP) No. 177 of 2005. 4...
Bharati Rajesh Bhave Vs. Vijay Shankar Bhave and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Oral Judgment:- 1. By this appeal from order, the appellant has impugned the order passed by the trial judge on 3rd October, 2015 allowing the notice of motion filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and directing the appellant to quit the suit flat along with her son and all her belongings within two months from the date of passing of the said order. 2. Mr.Kapse, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was married to the respondent no.3 who is son of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and has been staying in the suit property as her matrimonial home. He submits that the suit property was purchased jointly by the husband of the appellant with respondent no.1 though the said property is standing in the name of the respondent no.1 exclusively. He submits that the respondent no.3 who is husband of the appellant has also filed a false affidavit against the appellant to support respondent nos. 1 and 2. It is submitted that by the impugned order dated 3rd October, 2015, ...
ICICI Bank Limited and Another Vs. United Breweries (Holdings) Limited ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT: The Kingfisher Airlines Limited “ original Defendant No.3, who is a proforma Defendant against whom no reliefs are claimed by the original Plaintiffs, had taken financial assistance from large number of Financial Institutions and Nationalized Banks including the ICICI Bank Limited “ original Defendant No.2. The financial condition of the Kingfisher Airlines Limited “ original Defendant No.3 deteriorated and it requested all the Banks (hereinafter referred to as Consortium of Banks) including ICICI Bank Limited to restructure its debt which, at the relevant time in 2010 was Rs 573.72 crores. The Consortium of Banks including ICICI Bank agreed to recast the loan and the loan was accordingly divided in two parts viz. Rs 403.72 crores which was the recast loan plus Rs 170 crores which was secured by Compulsory Cumulative Preference Shares (CCPS?) which were converted into equity shares of Kingfisher Airlines Limited. The loan was secured by giving...
A/S. Eitzen Bulk Vs. Ashapura Minechem Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
1. By this petition filed under Sections 44 to 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act?), the petitioner prays for a declaration that the arbitral award dated 26th May 2009 is enforceable as a decree of this Court and seeks various interim reliefs including an order and direction against the respondent to file an affidavit through its Directors disclosing its assets, bank accounts and receivables wherever these be located in India and overseas. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2. On 18th January 2008, the petitioner as an Owner and the respondent as a Charterer entered into a Contract of Affreightment (COA) at Copenhagen, Denmark for various shipments of bauxite from India to China spread over the periods 2008 to 2010. Clause 28 of the said contract provides Any dispute arising under this COA is to be settled and referred to Arbitration in London and English law to apply. During the period between F...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »