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.
Janardhan @ Shivaji Tanaji Divade and Another Vs. Pandurang Anandrao S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this second appeal, the appellants (original defendants) have impugned the order and judgment dated 10th March, 2015 passed by the Principle District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. 2. The respondent (original plaintiff) had filed a suit for order and decree against the appellant for perpetual, mandatory injunction and possession in respect of the suit property. Before the trial court, it was the case of the appellant that the grand-father of the appellant had purchased the suit property from one Mr. Martand Karkhandis and the appellant had constructed the gobar gas plant in the suit property. 3. On 5th July, 2000, the original plaintiff had issued a notice to the appellant claiming that they were the owners of the suit property and called upon the appellant to remove the gobar gas plant from the suit property. The original plaintiff thereafter filed a suit for perpetual injunction not to disturb their possession and for injunction from removin...
Suresh Devidas Choudhari and Others Vs. Additional Collector Washim Ta ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. In view of notice for final disposal, learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 04/09/2015 passed by the respondent No.1 allowing the appeal preferred by respondent No.4 and setting aside the motion of no-confidence dated 12/03/2015. The respondent No.4 was elected as Sarpanch of respondent No.2 Grampanchayat. On the basis of a requisition for moving a motion of no-confidence against the respondent No.4, a notice dated 05/03/2015 convening special meeting on 12/03/2015 came to be issued. The notice dated 05/03/2015 was sought to be served on the respondent No.4 and the same was received by one Bhaurao @ Bharat Gulab Rathod. Thereafter the meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence was held on 12/03/2015 in which the motion was carried. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 35(3B) of the said Act. Initially by order dated 04/06/2015, the respondent No.1 had dismissed the appe...
Tapadiya Construction Ltd., A Public Limited Company Vs. Sanjay Suganc ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
1. Appeal is admitted. 2. Notice after admission, made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 3. The Appeal is filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] against the judgment and order of Miscellaneous Application numbered as M.A.R.J.I. No.198 of 2014 which was pending in the Court of Principal District Judge, Parbhani. The said proceeding was filed by present Respondent No.1 Sanjay Kasliwal under section 9 of the Act against present Appellant, which is a public limited company and Respondent No.2 Jugalkishor Tapadia. The learned Principal District Judge has granted relief of injunction against the Appellant and Respondent No.2 to prevent them from alienating in any way, immovable property of Appellant company situated in Hingoli, District Hingoli, till the dispute between Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is adjudicated by Arbitral Tribunal. One decree is already obtained by Buldhana Urban Cooperat...
Shrikrishna Marotrao Thawkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present appeal, the correctness and legality of the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, in Sessions Trial No.162 of 1998 on 24.12.2002 is under challenge before this Court. (a) By the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. (b) On account of his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. (c) On account of his conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, learned Judge of the Court below has sentenced the appellant that he should suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default, it is directed that he shall further suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen ...
Osmanabad District Swatantra Sainik Samiti and Another Vs. Jagannath P ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted on 17.2.1995. Interim relief in the nature of staying the direction to pay backwages was granted by the learned Division Bench of this Court. Subsequently, since the matter fell within the realm of the Single Judge Bench, this petition is placed before this Court for final hearing. 2. None present on behalf of respondent No.1, despite service of court notice. Learned AGP appears on behalf of respondent No.2. 3. The petitioners have challenged the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 18.8.1994 in Appeal No.60 of 1990, by which the School Tribunal has set aside the oral termination of respondent No.1 and the petitioners are directed to reinstate him on the post of Headmaster with continuity of service and backwages. 4. Shri Kale, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 had brought a case of oral termination dated 12.6.1990 before the School Tribunal. His contention was that he was prevented from signing the ...
Arohi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Tata Capital Financial S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
1. By this application filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the applicants seek appointment of the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this application are as under :- 2. On 25th August, 2011, the parties entered into a Debenture Subscription-cum-Option Agreement on the terms and conditions recorded therein. On 28th September, 2011, the parties entered into Debenture Subscription-cum-Option Agreement on the terms and conditions recorded therein. Some of the applicants also executed Corporate Guarantee dated 28th September, 2011 read with Supplementary Corporate Guarantee. Dispute arose between the parties. 3. On 10th September, 2014, the respondent through its advocate issued a demand notice upon the applicants alleging various defaults under various agreements referred to aforesaid and called upon the applicants to pay a sum of Rs.64,96,23,799/- with further inter...
Kishor Dattatraya Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
Oral Judgment: (Ranjit More, J.) 1. The Applicant has approached this Court resorting to the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the FIR bearing CR. No. I-148/2014 registered with Lonikand Police Station at the instance of Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The case of the Applicant is as follows: That, the Applicant is working in the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited as Assistant Engineer, and at the relevant time stationed at Hadapsar Rural Sub Division Office. Deceased Dilip Magar “ the husband of Respondent No.2 herein was also working in the said company as junior technician. On 20th March 2014, Dilip Magar (the deceased) and one S.B.Bhamgar who was working as technician were directed by Perne Section Office to go to Phulgaon to shut down a line supply of a high tension wire to conduct certain tests of a consumer. It was decided b...
Shaikh Farheen Sultana Abdul Samad Vs. The President Dayanand Shikshan ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
Oral Order: 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.10.2015 delivered by the University and College Tribunal (herein after referred to as the Tribunal?) by which, Appeal No.1/2009 preferred by the Petitioner for challenging the order of termination dated 26.04.2009 w.e.f. 01.06.2009, has been dismissed. 2. Shri Gunale, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, has strenuously criticized the impugned judgment. His submissions can be summarized in brief as follows: (a) Though the advertisement was published for selection of a Lecturer in Hindi subject and the Petitioner was at Sr.No.1 in the order of merit, she was not appointed till she raised the issue before the concerned University under the Right to Information Act, 2005. (b) By the appointment order dated 17.12.2007, the Petitioner was appointed on probation w.e.f. 18.12.2007. (c) The University approved the appointment of the Petitioner for the probation period from 18.12.2007 to 17.12.2009. (d) The Management...
Prashant Madrekar Vs. Police Inspector ACB/ Vigilance and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner/ accused is challenging the order dated 16/10/2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Panaji in Special Case No.2/2014. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., for recalling PW1 Thomas Menezes, for further cross-examination, has been rejected. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner is facing trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act before the learned Special Court at Panaji. It appears that earlier, the petitioner was represented by Advocate Mr. De Sa. PW1 Thomas Menezes, who is the complainant and a material witness, came to be examined and was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner by Advocate Mr. De Sa. On 21/12/2010, further cross-examination was deferred. It appears that, subsequently, there is yet another en...
Khasagi (Private) Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charitable Trust, through its ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Petitions take exception to the identical orders all dated 04.02.2013 passed by the Learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pandharpur, by which order the applications filed by the Plaintiffs in each of the suits for amendment of the plaint in so far as the description of the suit property is concerned, came to be rejected. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petitions can in brief be stated thus: 3. The Petitioners in each of the above Petitions are the original Plaintiffs. The Petitioner is a Private Charitable Trust and the Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 herein are the trustees of the said Trust. The Respondents in each of the above Petitions are the Defendants to the suits in question filed by the Petitioners and are their tenants. The said suits have been filed for possession of the suit premises on the ground of construction of per...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »