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.
Chandrakant P. Sanghvi and Others Vs. Chandrakant P. Sanghvi and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
1. By this chamber summons, the applicants (original respondent nos.1 to 5) seek revocation of the leave granted by this Court on 31st July 2013 to the original petitioners under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to institute and prosecute the proposed petition in this Court against the respondents on various grounds. 2. Though the applicants have applied for revocation of the leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, Dr.Sathe, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants without going into the issue as to whether any such leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent was required to be obtained by the petitioners or not, contends before this Court that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the Arbitration Petition No.1036 of 2013 filed by the petitioners under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act?) and thus leave granted by this Court be revoked. For the sake of convenience, parties descri...
Kamru @ Javed Haniflala Khan and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. The Appellants, who are convicted by the 3rd Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, by Judgment and Order dated 31st March 2009 in Sessions Case No.745 of 2007, for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for three months, by this Appeal challenge their conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts of the Appeal can be stated as follows:- PW-1, the Informant Farida Shaikh is the sister-in-law of deceased Mohammad Rafiq. On 12th June 2007, at about 5:00 pm,, when she had taken her niece Heena for hair-cut to Goodluck Hair Cutting Saloon and was standing in front of the said Saloon, she saw her brother-in-law deceased Mohammad Rafiq was coming from his house on the motorcycle. At that time four persons, coming from the opposite direction, intercepted him and assaulted him with sharp-edged weapons like knives. Due to the assault, Moha...
Niphad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In all these Petitions, the Petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of some of the provisions of the Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act, 1962 (for short the Act of 1962?). Since common questions of fact and law are involved, all these Petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. We grant Rule in some of the Petitions which have been listed for admission and along with others which are ready for hearing. Even these Petitions would be disposed of finally by this judgment. In other words, since all parties agreed and are present before the Court, with their consent, the Petitions are disposed of finally by this judgment. 3. The leading argument canvassed is in Writ Petition No. 2060 of 1997. We would refer to the facts in this Writ Petition. 4. The Petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is a Co-operative Sugar Factory situate at Nashik District of Maharashtra. The ...
Soma L. Raut, Assistant Sub Inspector and Others Vs. The State of Goa, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 01/09/2008 , whereby, the claim of the petitioners for upgradation to the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 applicable to Head Constables (Executive) with effect from 01/01/1996 and upgradation of pay scale of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) to a scale higher than Rs.4000-6000, has been refused. 2. The petitioner nos.1 to 3 were at the relevant time working as ASIs while the petitioner nos.4 to 6 were working as Head Constables (ACPS). Indisputably, the petitioner nos.4 to 6 were getting pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). The petitioner nos.1 to 3 have been promoted as ASI (Executive) from the post of Head Constable (Executive) in the year 2007. The post of Head Constable (Executive) was carrying a pay scale of Rs.3200-4900, whereas the promotional post of ASI was carrying pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. 3. The material contention is that Head Constables (Executive) are ent...
Subhash and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) 1. The present appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 are prosecuted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 302 and 504 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I. P. Code?). The accused No. 1/Subhash Chavan is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 302 of the I. P. Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 504 of the I. P. Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The accused No. 2/Pappu Chavan is acquitted for an offence punishable U/Sec. 302 of the I. P. Code, but is convicted for an offence punishable U/Sec. 504 of the I. P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. As per the prosecution case, on or about 28th December, 2009 at 06.00 a.m. the deceased ...
Development Credit Bank Ltd. Vs. Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Prop ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 12th March 2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi, Respondent No.1 herein. Challenge is also laid to the order dated 23rd September, 2011 passed by the passed by Respondent No.2 under section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short SAFEMA?). Respondent No.2 is the Competent Authority under SAFEMA. 3. The brief facts to decide the present controversy is that Respondent No.3 is a sole proprietor of M/s. Aakar Prints and Packs and was the owner of a flat bearing No.G-2, Sushobhit CHS, Charkop, M.G. Road, Sector-2, Kandivli (W), Mumbai-67 (for short, the suit property?) alongwith a Mitsubishi Lancer car bearing registration No.GJ-18-AB-1171. The Petitio...
Saundarya Productions Pvt. Limited and Another Vs. Sanjay Gupta and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
Oral Order: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07/12/2015 passed in Chamber Summons (L) No. 2202 of 2015 in Suit No.543 of 2015. By the said order, the learned Single Judge refused to extend time granted under clause 2(b)(vii) of an Order dated 25/06/2015 passed in the suit filed by Respondent No.1/original Plaintiff. 2. It will be necessary to narrate brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal. Appellant No.1 is a Private Limited Company and is carrying on business of producing various films. Appellants approached Respondent No.1/Plaintiff sometime in March, 2014 as a Writer and Director of Appellant No.1 “ Firm. On 14/04/2014, confirmation letter was executed by and between the parties and it was agreed that Respondent No.1/original Plaintiff would be paid an amount of Rs 5 crores for the said purpose and a token amount of Rs 45,90,000/- was paid by Appellant No.1 -Firm to Respondent...
Abhishek Mishra Vs. The State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Government Advocate waives service for the respondents. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the memorandum dated 28.10.2013, issued by the Superintendent of Excise, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of liquor license for retail sale of IMFL, CL and FL has been rejected. The petitioner is also challenging the communication dated 09.02.1989, issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Finance (Revenue and Control) and in particular, clause 3 thereof, by which the Excise Authority has been asked to ensure that people with criminal background/police record should not be given liquor license for obvious reasons?. The Excise Commissioner has been asked to ascertain from the I.G.P. as to whether there is any record person seeking such license. 3. Sometime in the year 2012, the petitioner started the business of Bar and Restaurant in the n...
Shree Developers A Partnership firm and Others Vs. Charles Anthony Pac ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. V. Menezes, learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 2a to 2d in Writ Petition No.342/2015 and Mr. V. Menezes, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Writ Petition No.564/2015. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. V. Menezes, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2(a) to 2(d) and Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No. 342/2015 and Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Mr. C. Padgaonkar, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent...
Umakant Kisan Mane Amrutben Chawl Vs. The Dean, Rajawadi Municipal Hos ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
K.R. Shriram, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is attributing direct negligence on the part of the respondents regarding the performance of respondents' duties, which, according to the petitioner was the proximate cause for losing the fingers of his right hand. The petitioner, therefore, is praying for (a) direction to the respondents to take action against the employees, agents and doctors responsible for the condition of the petitioner, (b) direction to the respondents to provide to the petitioner employment and (c) direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation. 2. The facts in brief are as under:- On 1st October, 2002 around 0.55 A.M., pursuant to an attack of convulsion, the petitioner, who at the time the petition was filed was about 21/22 years of age, was admitted in Medical Unit-III of Rajawadi Hospital under Dr. S.R. Oraskar, Senior Honorary Physician. The respondent no.2, i.e., Bombay Municipal Corporation, has established an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »