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.
SBI Home Finance Ltd. Vs. Lalit C. Gandhi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2015
P.C. : 1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the Applicant - State Bank of India, as an assignee of the suit debt from the original Plaintiff - SBI Home Finance Limited. The latter is an entity promoted by the former. The Applicant as an assignee seeks to prosecute the present suit under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ('CPC'). The Applicant, accordingly, seeks an amendment in the plaint. Besides, being an application under Section 22 Rule 10 of CPC, the present application also seeks to implead the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Defendant No.1 under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC. 2. Both these requests, that is, applications under Order 22 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC are opposed by Respondent No.3 proposed to be joined as a party Defendant in place of deceased Defendant No.1 in addition to other Respondents. The other Defendants to the suit and also other Respondents, who are sought to be joined as Defendants, do not contest the applications. 3. T...
Kishor M. Gadhave Patil and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2015
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. Petitioners are functioning as Additional Government Pleaders / Additional Public Prosecutors / Assistant Government Pleaders/Assistant Public Prosecutors in the High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. According to petitioners, tenure prescribed under their appointment orders has not expired and would come to an end in June 2016 and thereafter, but for the reason mentioned in the order impugned in this matter, issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Rule 30(5) of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984, (for short, Rules of 1984?), their appointment came to be terminated before completion of prescribed tenure. 3. Petitioners claim that they have been appointed in observance of the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1984 by the Respondents and Notifications, in that regard, have be...
The Karad Urban Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. Sunil Laxman Dalvi and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant is a co-operative bank. It had filed a complaint against respondent no.1 herein alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I.Act). The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karad, after holding a trial, held respondent no.1 not guilty and passed an order of acquittal. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the appellant has, after obtaining special leave of this court, filed the present appeal. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application praying that additional evidence, as contemplated under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code), be directed to be taken. It was decided that this application for a direction to take additional evidence, be also considered along with the appeal. 3. Respondent No.1 did not remain present at the time of final hearing of the appeal, inspite of notice, and inspite of granting him repeated opportunities to be presen...
Sindhudurg Zilla Shikshan Sanstha Chalak Mandal, Pandur (Registered), ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-2015
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the Counsel appearing for the respective parties. All these Petitions are disposed of by this common Judgment, as common facts and circumstances, issues and laws are involved. 2. The Petitioners are the Head Masters?, permanent schools Teachers? including Assistant Head, supervisor of aided non-minority? recognized private/primary Schools?, governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, MEPS Act?) and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, MEPS Rules?) made thereunder, apart from Circulars/Notifications/GRs (The Circulars?) issued by the State of Maharashtra (The State?), from time to time. The teachers? of the recognized schools run by the Local Authorities? are also involved. Some petitions are by the respective Teachers and Association of institutions. Petitions are...
M/s. Leading Hotels, Goa represented herein by its P. Ravi Vs. Shri An ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-15-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri Shivan Dessai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Norma Alwares, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent nos.6 to 10. 2. Rule. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The above petition, inter alia, takes exception to an order passed by the learned National Green Tribunal (the Tribunal, for short) dated 08/09/2015 in Miscellaneous Application No.15/2015 in Appeal No.2/2015, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner, came to be rejected. 6. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that they were granted environmental clearance on 12/04/2013 by the respondent no.7. The respondent nos.1 to 4 filed a Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition No.26/2014 somewhere in December, 2014, ...
Indian Small Scale Paint Association Society Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-2015
G.S. Patel, J. 1. On 14th October 2014, notice was issued to the Respondents for final disposal of this Petition at the admission stage returnable on 24th November 2015. Hence: Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and Petition called out and taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to the legality and validity of the Maharashtra Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Licensing) Order 2007 (the impugned Order?; the State Order?). 3. The Petitioner is an association and a society of manufacturers of paints of various kinds and descriptions. The Petitioner Association™s members are all small scale units. They manufacture paint formulations by combining various raw materials in different proportions to get the desired quality of paint. The relevant raw materials fall into several groups, such as film forming materials, pigments and extenders, solvents and additives. Many of these are petroleum byproducts. 4. Petroleu...
Laxman Chandar Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-2015
1. The appellant was prosecuted on the allegation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The learned Sessions Judge, Nashik, after holding a trial, found him guilty only of an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. He, therefore, acquitted the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and convicted him only of an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge imposed a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and a fine of Rs.100/- on the appellant. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him, the appellant has approached this court by filing the present appeal. 2. The State of Maharashtra has not filed any appeal or any other proceedings before any court challenging the order of acquittal of the appellant with respect to the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, and his conviction only in respect of a lesser offence. 3. ...
GSL (India) Ltd. Vs. Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-2015
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is laid to the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short, the DRAT?) dated 8th October, 2013 whereby the DRAT upheld the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal “ III, Mumbai (for short the DRT “ III, Mumbai?) dated 14th August 2011. The DRT “ III Mumbai, held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the Securitization Application filed by the Petitioner and ordered the return of the Securitization Application to the Petitioner so that the same could be filed in the competent DRT. In a nutshell, both the authorities below held that DRT “ III, Mumbai would have no jurisdiction to entertain the Securitisation Application as the secured property was situated in the State of Gujarat and therefore the Securitization Application could...
Tukaram Vs. Sayyed Zahurul-Haqu and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-15-2015
1. The proceeding is filed against judgment and order of Wakf Suit No.104 of 2009 which was pending before Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. The suit filed by the present respondent, Sayyed Zahurul-Haqu in respect of the property bearing Survey No.22 (Gat No.98), admeasuring 26 Acres situated at village Saundalgaon, Tahsil Ambad, District Jalna is decreed for relief of possession. It is the case of Respondent, plaintiff that this property belongs to Dargah Peer Saheb, it is Wakf Property. Both the sides are heard. 2. The aforesaid property is registered in the list of Wakfs published by the State Government in the year 1975. It is the case of plaintiff that he is Mutawalli and so he is entitled to take possession of the property. It is the case of plaintiff that his predecessor Sayyed Abdullah was Mutawalli and succession came to be granted in his favour on 7th December, 1988 under the provisions of Atiyat Act. 3. It is the case of plaintiff that, since long in the revenue record also the pro...
Manoj Vs. Rahemat Bee Mohd. Hasam and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. Applicant is Accused No.1 in a private complaint filed by Respondent No.1/Complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (1st Court), Jalgaon on which learned Magistrate took cognizance, registered the case as R.C.C. No.651 of 2005 and issued summons to the Applicant / Accused. The case was registered under Sections 326, 504, 506(II) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Here is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in R.C.C. No.651 of 2005 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (1st Court), Jalgaon. 4. For the sake of convenience Applicant shall be referred as Accused No.1 and Respondent No.1 as Complainant as were referred before the Trial Court. 5. The case of Complainant in brief is as under “ i. On 9th February, 2005 between 01:00 pm and 02:00 pm Complainant was in her brot...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »